Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correct–not using a certain sequence must be inferior to assigning that sequence some specific, well-defined meaning.

If you think a certain sequence uses up a lot of bidding room, then that just means that it must show some very narrowly defined set of hands. But not using the sequence at all just reduces your system's descriptive power vs. one that uses more sequences with appropriate definitions for each.

That is the principle behind “picture bid jumps” and “fit showing jumps”–these bids use a lot of bidding space, *but* they describe very specific hand features. The specificity of the description can compensate for the space consumed.
June 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is a pet peeve of mine when partner rebids 2 with this hand (as mine does too often).

1NT then 2 is about the most negative, discouraging sequence partner can concoct–in fact, it is often done with 3 s too weak for a raise for the express purpose of “discouraging” opener.

What is opener going to do when he hears the “weak preference” holding, say KQJxx-Qxxx-Qx-Ax ?
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Just the Q with partner is sufficient for a “beat”
J or T is not needed.
( assuming he holds A–if no A, then declarer has 9 tricks unless we can cash *3* tricks immediately to go with our 2 s, meaning pard would need KJx.

2. Cashing the A may be fatal (as in example I gave above). So there is no “sure beat”–you have to decide
at trick 2 how you are going to defend–cannot wait for partner's “signal” on the A even if you knew what it meant.

3. So it is *possible* that the only winning defense is the A and another . The only lay-out I can see where that is necessary is if pard has 4 s, *and* the A and not the K and not the Q–a real longshot to play for it seems to me.
Meanwhile, shifting to a low at trick 2 wins if
(a) partner has :KJx (or : KQx)
or
(b) partner has A and K
or
© partner has A and Q

There are lay-outs where an immediate shift would work *and* you can still beat the hand if you cash A first and then shift to a , but why risk that?
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It shows a strong NT (15-17) with a 5 card major.
Cuts back on the (IMO) usually bad idea of opening 1N with this hand type (particularly with 16-17).

Important to agree with partner whether this 3NT promises 5332 shape (I think that is a good idea), or if it can be done with a stiff in responder's suit.
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,
I think your long list slightly exagerates the reality.

What you clearly lose is “two ways to show s”, as with Lebensohl you can bid 2NT then pass partner's 3 (if that's what he bids) or advance 3 directly showing “values.”

I don't think the meanings of 2M advances are affected (weak, up to some maximum, say 7 or 8 or whatever).

You still have 3M jump advances as invitational.

With GF hands, you can start with 3 cue-bid, Staymanesque.

I guess you lose “two ways to cue-bid” also–immediate 3 advance vs. 2NT then, if partner bids 3, delayed 3, however one chooses to define the distinction.

But I gain a natural 2NT which I think is quite valuable (giving it up is a real loss even after doubles of (2M), but at least then there are more hand types for advancer where Lebensohl allows him to make important strength distinctions, e.g. after (2)-DBL, he can show weak vs. invitational hands in any of *3* suits).
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This agreement (Lebensohl after doubles of (2M) but not after doubles of (2)) does not seem to be one of the more difficult ones for my partners to remember.

Perhaps it is because we also play:
* Over our weak 2M, next step is “Ogust-like”, while
over our 2, next step is “feature ask.”

* When we overcall their (2) with 2NT, we use the
same structure as over our 2NT openers (allows showing
5=4 and 4=5 major suit hands among other things).
But when we overcall their (2M) with 2NT, we use
transfers (3 ==> 3, cue-bid is Stayman, bidding
suit below theirs transfers to next suit above theirs).

So my partners are fully primed to treat 2 differently from 2M openings.

Leonard,
Double does not appeal to me much with 3=4=3=3 shape, a nice hold-upable holding, and the right (albeit minimum) HCP count for 2NT. The minimal point count would be the only factor that gives double any appeal (as you say, can play 2M), but I don't think this is enough to distort my hand type.
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If advancer jumped to 3 over intervenor's double, that would show a strong hand (some would play it as forcing).

Thus, intervenor's bidding 3NT over the 3 jump advance would not show a particularly strong hand in my view.

Perhaps you were thinking of starting with double and then *jumping* to 3NT over a *2* advance? Does that show the same shape(s) as an immedate 3NT but a different strength range? Maybe.
But might also just show more flexibility (i.e. doubt about 3NT vs. perhaps playing in s if advancer has 5+ of those).
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks.
I do have a large database of (laboriously) pre-calculated performance of various strength balanced hands opposite balanced dummys of various strengths in NT contracts.
These were all 10,000 deal simulations, so pretty “accurate” (but yes, all using double dummy analysis–the horror!).

This makes it easier for me to use simulations on problems such as the above since I only have to run one with the test hand.

BTW, I would note that this type of question (“is this hand worth an upgrade/downgrade w.r.t it's actual HCP count?”) is particularly appropriate for double-dummy simulations because errors due to double-dummy analysis, however important you may think they are for other simulation experiments, are relatively unimportant for this type of question since we are comparing a “test” hand with many different hands using the same double-dummy analysis in all cases.

The relative performance of the test hand as compared to a large number of different similarly shaped hands with the same or +1 or -1 HCP should give us a good sense of whether “upgrade” or “downgrade” is justified, even if the actual numbers produced (e.g. %age of deals where 3NT makes) differ from what real-world single dummy results would have been.

Of course, as here, it may be necessary to look at more than just 3NT (or NT in general) results, as possible alternative strains may be relevent. Unfortunately, I do not as yet have a similar database of pre-calculated results for suit contracts, so I did have to do some extra work here to look at 4 contracts in 5-3 fits.
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,
I think we must assume partner has the A in any event because if declarer has it, he would appear to have 9 tricks if we cash our A (6 , 2 s and 1 ), unless partner's s are as good as KJx, in which case a shift either immediately *or* after cashing A will succeed.

Given that, a low shift before relinquishing control of the suit will succeed if partner has as little as the Q. Say declarer has QJ-J76x-QJT-KJTx, for example.
Cashing the A would be fatal while a shift at trick 2 would defeat the contract.

It is true that A and a 3rd is necessary when declarer has both the K and the Q (but not A), while partner started with four s, for example, if declarer has:
Qx-J76-QJTx-KQTx. But that is a big parlay I think.
There are other lay-outs where either play will succeed, but we don't have to worry about those!
June 23, 2018
Craig Zastera edited this comment June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I compared with average 17 & 18 HCP balanced hands of all shapes for NT purposes. Using those yardsticks I found:

* opposite 7 HCP balanced with 2 spades:
3NT with test hand between avg 17 and avg 18,
but slightly closer to avg 17.
avg 17: 3NT makes 36.45%
avg 18: 3NT makes 54.88%
OP hand 1: 3NT makes 44.8%

Note:
I don't claim my figures are accurate to anywhere
near 0.01%. They are all based on 10,000
deal simulations.
Accuracy is probably around 0.5% or so.
I'm just reporting my exact measurements.

* opposite 7 HCP balanced with 3 spades:
4 was 48% on test hand vs.
54% with avg 18 balanced with 5 s
but only 35% with avg 17s with 5 s.
So, OP hand 1 clearly closer to avg 18 for 4.

Thus, for purposes of playing 4, OP hand 1 is indeed just a little below avg 18 w/ 5 , so upgrade justified.

For 3NT without an 8 card fit, closer to avg 17
balanced 17, but only slightly.

So I agree that this hand does justify an upgrade.

Particularly because the fact that it is a better hand
for a contract (when a fit exists), it is better
to open 1 rather than 1NT because the 1 opening increases the chances of finding a desirable 5-3 fit.

I suspect it is the weak doubleton that makes this hand effectively stronger for a contract (in 5-3 fit) then it is for a NT contract.
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, my simulations suggest that even hand 1 is not quite worth an upgrade.

My criteria for an upgrade is that the hand must perform closer to the average for +1 HCP with the same shape (i.e., here 18 HCPs with 5 and balanced shape) than to the average for same shape and HCPs (17 with 5 and balanced).

While hand 1 here performs better than an average 17 HCP, balanced with 5 , it is (slightly) closer to that than to the average 18 balanced with 5 s. Therefore, no upgrade.
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Best is to define 4 as asking partner's hand type.

Assuming we don't have that, I transfer to , then bid a natural 4NT—seems like a pretty good description.
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't play Lebensohl advances of doubles of (2).
There is more benefit from a natural 2NT, since both and can be shown at the 2 level with a bad hand, so Leb would only have benefit when advancer has s.
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why cash A?
If this is IMPs (you don't say), seems clear to shift to some other than the A at trick 2.
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not understand worry about describing these hands later.

If partner responds a forcing 1NT, we can rebid a 3 card minor, and then if partner preferences back to 2M (most common), we can continue with 2NT to show 16-17.

If partner makes a 2/1 GF response, a jump to 3NT shows our hand perfectly.

With only 15 HCPs and 5332, I usually open 1NT as 2m then 2NT seems like it might get us too high.

On the 1st OP hand, I can understand judging this strong enough for 1-1N-2N.
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think most would overcall 1 with the East hand.
At matchpoints and/or NV, I would do so too.

But VUL at IMPs, I think the East hand is very marginal for 1, so cannot fault the pass (although I'm not sure I would have passed even at these conditions).

But passing worked out badly as now we have endplayed ourselves into having to make a marginal 2NT bid. On the plus side, hopefully partner will not expect any more than this from us, else surely we would have overcalled 1 the first time.
June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The popular 3 choice (and I agree after given start) would have worked well.

See my final post for the “real deal” and our result at:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/how-would-you-bid-this-hand-2-2d8z81sskn/
June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Time to post our embarrasing result on this deal.

OP hand was held by my partner.
My hand was: AQ643 T32 A5 Q75

Our auction (shield children's eyes):
pard me
1 1
2 2 (1 round force)
3 3
4 pass

Making 5, +150 and 2.5 matchpoints on 47 top

Plenty of blame to go around. Obviously, these hands could have been bid many other (better) ways to reach the obvious 3NT. +660 was worth 56% of the matchpoints.

A 1NT opener would have worked well (this time):
1N-2-2-3NT
but could lead to problems opposite different hands (e.g. insisting on s).

The 2 rebid might have worked (this time) had opener
bid 3 next:
1-1-2-2-3-3NT (3 = partial stopper)

A 3 rebid by me (GF) would likely have gotten 3NT
1-1-2-3(?)-3NT.

A 3 or 2NT jump rebid by partner would have worked this time (although 3 just endplays me into winning 3NT).

My choice for partner's best rebid, 2, would have worked
well this time: 1-1-2-2-3-3NT.

A GF 3 raise by responder after the 2 reverse, would probably force 3NT from opener (hope that's not “non-serious” for s).

Even more awkward would be 1-1-2-2N-3-3, where 2NT is Lebensohl and 3 is an attempt to sign-off–this is the only really bad auction for the fake reverse.
June 21, 2018
Craig Zastera edited this comment June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner held this hand and re-opened with 2.

I thought that this was terrible–I see a re-opening double as virtually mandatory for any pair playing negative doubles.

I'm not saying all hands must re-open with “double.”
But I do think that hands that are short in their suit (<3) should re-open with double unless they are *very* unusual (e.g.6-5 shape and/or very high ODR).

The general guideline in my view is “if you would have sat for a penalty double of (1),then you should re-open with a double.”

In my view, this hand is not nearly “unusual” enough to eschew the re-opening double–it has perfectly good defense (3 quicks +) and reasonably normal shape.

Another friend (a good player) predicted that in a poll many, I think he said more than half, would choose 2 re-opening
rather than double (I don't think he said that would be his choice).

I was confident that the vast majority (say 75%) would re-open with double, hence this poll.

BTW, responding hand (me) held:
QJx-KJ8xx-AJx-9x
and (1X) would have gone down 4 tricks for 1100.
Over my partner's re-opening 2, I jumped to 3NT and made 5 for 460 (and a 1 IMP win on the deal).
June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point, Peg.
So if double of (2) shows interest in doubling one or both majors, then I suppose you are right that a later 4NT (over their (4) must be natural and not showing s + tolerance.

But the inconsistency in that is that if the double of (2) suggests interest in defending their major suit contract doubled, then why wouldn't responder be following through with that idea now that they are way up at the four level?

The answer, of course, is that responder fears he won't get a big enough penalty at the given vulnerability to compensate for the sure game and possible slam his side has.

But then perhaps responder should have considered the vulnerability factor when intervenor bid (2) and done something other than doubling then, e.g. a natural, slam invitational 4NT immediately.
June 21, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top