Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
1 2 3 4 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 95 96 97 98
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems like text-book DBL, showing a big hand with only 3 card support.

Partner is entitled to remove to 4 with 5+ s (particularly at this vulnerability where making game is likely to be worth more than we get defending (4X)).

I think 4NT here would be natural, 19+ HCPs and s stopped, but that choice would be best with only two s.

5 would be natural with a hand too strong for a 2 overcall. I don't think the s are long enough on this hand (and the support too good) to make that choice best.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Logically, partner's double has to show that he has more than a minimum, and not just in big minor suit distribution (e.g. 6-6), but in HCPs (given that our jump to 4 suggests no interest in the minors).

But we have 13 HCPs.

Suppose LHO has opened and competed to 5 with 10 HCPs and big shape, and RHO has raised to 3 with only 6 HCPs.

I am trying to assign both opponents extreme weak hands (short of assuming a psych).
Normally, opening bidder would have more than 10 HCPs, and the 3 raise over 2NT is usually played as showing somewhere between a constructive (usually four card) raise and a minimum LR (with a good LR, choose a stronger raise), hence would usually be more than 6 HCPs.

But even with these extreme assumptions, that leaves only a maximum of 11 HCPs for partner.

Is that enough for him to decide he needs to DOUBLE to show more than a minimum for his vulnerable 2NT?

Well, maybe with say, xx-void-AKxxx-Axxxxx or
xx-void-Axxxxx-AQJxx (both of which make 7 cold).

Would xx-x-KQxxx-AQxxx (5 is our limit) be enough?
Well, I wouldn't think so–that looks like not much more than a minimum for an unfavorable vunerability 2NT.

Thus, if we trust partner's double to mean what it should, it seems that jumping to 6 now would be quite reasonable.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice example, Frances!
That is really close to justifying a fit jump beyond 3NT.

Of course, one can *still* rather easily construct hands for opener where 3NT would be right (AKxx-Kxx-xxxx-Ax).

Two questions for you, though:
(1) if you play 1-(1M)-4 as a fit jump, is it
game forcing or can we stop in 4 ?

(2) do you think playing this 4 jump in comp as
fit showing for s is the best agreement
(as opposed to, say, just a weak hand with a lot
of s) ?
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play it as a 4 level minor suit pre-empt (either minor) because one needs that if playing 4 and 4 openings as Namyats as we do.

If I didn't play Namyats, I think I would play 3NT opening as both minors with less than an opening bid, probably at least 6-5.
Gambling 3NT has little appeal since even if we belong in 3NT, with that type of hand it will usually be better to declare from the other side.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't agree with your interpretation of what the UI means (Not that we're supposed to be trying to interpret UI at the table).
Just because RHO's 3 was a weaker raise than 3 would have been does not mean they are saving. LHO could have an extremely strong and/or distributional hand and be bidding 5 with every expectation of making it. Therefore, partner's PASS of 5 should not be forcing whether responder's raise was 3 or 3.
Thus, partner's double clearly shows more than minimum strength–he wants us to know that this time his 2NT was not the drek that he apparently sometimes holds for this call.
That interpretation makes it reasonable for us to strongly consider 6 rather than 5, but PASS is not a LA IMO.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny you should ask.
I play when partner opens 1M and my RHO overcalls, a single jump in RHO's suit is a splinter, but jumps in other unbid suits are FSJ (forcing to the next level of opener's major).

Also, if partner opens 1m and my RHO overcalls, a single jump in RHO's suit is a splinter, but a jump to two or three of an unbid major are fit showing but not forcing (but a double jump is stronger than a single jump).

However, yesterday the following auction occurred:
me LHO partner
1 1 4 ??

My hand was: KJx-AQx-KTxx-Txx

My view is that this jump should *NOT* be fit showing, hence just a natural pre-emptive call. However, 1-(1M)-3 and 1-(1M)-3 would be fit jumps.

The reasoning is that it would be a very rare responding hand that would know it is right to bypass 3NT to show a fit jump with both our suits being MINORS.

My partner and I have definitely discussed that the uncontested auctions 1-3, 1-4, and 1-4 are natural, pre-emptive bids, i.e. NOT splinters (although we have agreed that 1m-3M are splinters).

The uncontested 1-3 is just a natural invitational bid as is generally played in 2/1 GF methods.

Anyway, either we had never explicitly discussed the 4 jump response in competition after our 1 opening, or my partner forgot.

His hand was xx-x-Axxxx-AQJxx.

I passed 4, and naturally s were 2-2, the K was onside, and he guessed the s correctly in the endgame to make 12 tricks.

Even though his hand really is a (rare, IMO) example where one *might* want to risk a 4 fit jump (at IMPs only), the argument about not bypassing 3NT still held true as 12 tricks can be made in NT from my side.

My view is that he should just have made a (strength ambiguous but otherwise clearly defined) 3 fit jump.
I probably would have just rebid 3 over this (although 3NT is not totally out of the question). Over that, I'm not sure what he would have done (jumped to 5 ??).
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I know many variations of “xyz” (aka 2-way NMF) exist.

The version I quoted is based on a “Building a Better Mousetrap” article by Kit Woolsey from a bridge magazine (can't remember which–not Bridge World) many years ago.

I believe his article described the method only over opener's 1NT rebids, but I have adopted his methods with some minimal modifications for the case where opener rebids 1M also. The main change is just that over the 2 relay to 2, opener who rebid 1M doesn't always have to accept the relay, whereas had he rebid 1NT he does. This makes sense since the 1NT rebid is much better defined in both shape and strength than is a 1M rebid.

I've also generalized the method to cover the sequences after 1-1-1M/1N and after 1-1-1N, neither of which were treated in the original article.

But I like the part where responder's immediate 2NT is invitational without s,whereas the delayed 2NT (going through the 2 relay) is invitational with s.
This even applies when opening bid was 1, e.g. :
1-1M-1NT-2-2-2NT.
This makes it possible to back into a 3 partial when opener is 4=4 in the minors with a minimum.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, if you have XYZ available as most do nowadays, this hand would be perfect for 2-2-2NT (instead of 2) which shows a natural invitation with 4+ s (an immediate jump to 2NT over partner's 1 would deny 4+ s).

This way, partner can choose among 2NT, 3, and 3NT, although your choosing this sequence suggests that you think 3 will likely be better than 2NT if partner doesn't want to bid game because if you preferred 2NT when he doesn't want to bid game, you could have just jumped to that contract over 1 (i.e. essentially “hiding” your support).
May 27
Craig Zastera edited this comment May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The formula I outlined is right out of Kaplan's (old) classic book “Competitive Bidding in Modern Bridge.”
I have used it for decades and found it generally works pretty well.

Occasionally, I've found Kaplan's formula a little bit over aggressive when a hand makes it up to 9 points mainly due to lots of additions for shape (i.e. it is way short in HCPs) and the two hands don't fit very well (but when they do fit well, even Kaplan's aggressive upgrades for shape will likely be right on the money in predictive accuracy).

The OP hand here is only 1 HCP short of the 9 “points” required for a jump suit response.
The 5th and the stiff are surely more than enough to compensate for that.
Now, if the hand had the same shape but only, say, 6 HCPs, that would still count to 9 “Kaplan points”, but in that case I would probably use common sense and advance only 1.
May 27
Craig Zastera edited this comment May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed,
If you tell me exactly what Bergen's “starting points calculations” are and exactly what is required to upgrade by 1 point, I will give you an opinion as to feasibility of estimating %age of 14 HCP balanced hands that would qualify for said upgrade.
No guarantees until I hear the details, but it might not require manual examination of each hand, although for some problems I have not been able to figure out ways to avoid that just using “DealMaster Pro” capabilities (I think it would usually be possible to write some additional software to search for and count up qualifying hands automatically, but I have not had the ambition to do such).

Then, I think the interesting simulation would be to see whether Bergen's “upgraded” 14 HCPs hands really do perform as well as, say, average 15 HCP hands (that would not qualify for an upgrade to 16). Actually, using my usual criteria, it would be enough if the performance of the upgraded 14's was closer to average 15s than to average 14s.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actual responder hand too strong for 3NT, even given this shows some mild slam interest (initially). That hand should probably rebid 4NT.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Had a tough choice first time unless some special methods were available. If not, 2 seems like our only option.

But as the auction has progressed, partner is likely to have a stiff .
Give him some monster hand like x-KQxxx-Axxx-JTx and 4 has play. I know, this could go down on a ruff, but this is only a 10 count for partner. Give him similar hand with :KJx and we might make 5.

I don't regard bidding 4 now as any kind of breach of partnership since I am entitled to re-evaluate our prospects in light of the bidding.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I chose PASS, but upon reflection I like double if partner will interpret it as an invitation to compete to 3.
Can't do that safely later (when 3m comes around to me), because then we *have* to play 3 or defend a partscore doubled into game.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has to be a penalty double since partner didn't double 1 for take-out. I give him 4 good s and 13-14 HCPs.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Glad to see the action is between 1 vs. 2 as it should be IMO.
I have to yell at my partner regularly when he insists on advancing his 5 card minor in preference to a 4 card major after my TO doubles.

Unpleasant to have to jump in a mediocre 4 card suit, but I think this hand is just too strong for a mere 1.

The way I advance partner's TO double, a suit jump shows 9-11 support points.
This hand counts to about 11 (8 HCPs, 1 for the 5th diamond, 2 for the club singleton)–just too much for 0-8 1.

Temptation is to equivocate by jumping to 2 to show the hand strength *and* the respectable 5 card suit.
But don't do it.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Utterly routine 2.
Don't rebid 1NT with a small doubleton in an unbid suit when you have a nice 3 card raise of partner's major.
Not close.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Each of these factors and any others you can think of can be researched using simulations by controlling for their occurance.
For example, I recently did a study of 15 HCP balanced hands opposite 10 HCP balanced hands (no 8+ card major suit fits of course) in 3NT controlling for the number and location of 10 spots in both the partnership hands (i.e. no tens, 1 ten in the strong hand none in the weak, 1 in the weak hand, none if the strong, etc. up to all 4 tens divided between the two hands in various ways).

Using DealMaster Pro, it is relatively easy to specify cards all the way down through the 7 spot.
You can also control what honor combinations occur in individual suits (e.g. you could compare 10 HCP balanced hands with, say two KQ combinations vs. A, K, Q, J in 4 different suits, etc.).

The only problem is the time it takes to isolate all factors of interest and perform the simulations to assess the effects of each.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don't have an agreement, you don't alert.
Opponents are entitled to know about your *agreements*, NOT about what you “think” or “guess” your partner's calls might mean in the absence of an agreement.

Similarly, if you alert and explain (when asked) your *agreement* about what partner's call is supposed to mean, then if his hand is different from that (i.e. he has likely forgotten the agreement), then you have correctly fulfilled your obligation to inform the opponents about your agreement.

If our side (say partner) winds up declaring, partner should NOT tell the opponents that his hand doesn't (or may not) match what he should have had according to the agreement you have previously described AS LONG AS YOU HAVE CORRECTLY DESCRIBED YOUR AGREEMENTS AND HE KNOWS THAT YOU HAVE.

If, however, he believes that you have not described your agreements correctly, he should definitely (at the end of the auction) tell the opponents that.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand why there is so much concern over the minutiae of exact wording of “alert” rules in various jurisdictions.
Isn't it clear that the spirit of bridge is that the opponents are entitled to know (and in a timely fashion) about any relevent agreements that your side has?

I think most (but certainly not all) play that a new suit response to partner's weak 2 without competition is forcing.
There is a place on the (ACBL) convention card to specify if a new suit response is non-forcing, and that area is IN RED so it is clear that it needs to be alerted.

Whether this is intended to apply when the new suit response is in competition (i.e. opener's LHO has done something other than pass) is not entirely clear.
But if one played the new suit response as non-forcing only in competition, it would seem easy enough to check the box and add the words “in comp. only” after it.

Anyway, some play this forcing (mainstream in ACBL) and some play it non-forcing. In competition, no doubt there are some who treat the new suit response differently than they would without competition (e.g. F w/0 comp., NF in comp).

So it is clear that
(a) the default (mainstream) is FORCING (in ACBL anyway)
(b) if you play NF, this must be noted on the card
and alerted.
© if you play NF only in comp, the opponents might
easily be unaware of this.
(d) 4th hand might need to know if there is
the possibility that responder's new suit bid
might be passed out.
Therefore,
in the spirit of “full disclosure”, opener should
alert a NF new suit response to a weak 2 in
competition whether or not it is 100% clear from
the ACBL convention card and/or published alert
rules that this is technically required.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously, on any *one* deal, one makes a integral number of tricks. But that does not mean that individual hands can't be evaluated with much greater precision that that based on *statistical analysis* of how that hand performs over a great many deals.
If I look at a particular hand over say 10,000 deals with a set of narrowly defined hands opposite and determine that, say, 3NT makes on 5932 of those deals, then it is fair to say that hand should be evaluated higher than a hand that makes 3NT on only, say, 5351 deals when facing a similarly specified set (not identical hands, obviously) of hands opposite.

Such analysis can be used to measure precisely the average value of say 4333 shape vs. 4432 or 5332 shape. Or, one can measure exactly the value of a 10 as opposed to a 9 or an 8, etc.
May 26
1 2 3 4 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 95 96 97 98
.

Bottom Home Top