[Al_U_Card]

I have only ever used that 3H bid as opener to show a 6th H and to show a max (13-14) not worth a game try (so 6322) doesnt come up much if at all (maybe 5 times in.....a whole lot of years....which is why the bidnocrats couldn't stand to let an idle bid lie....

[jtfanclub]

cardsharp, on May 18 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

So Justin, Josh and Fred are in agreement. That means that they are certainly right, not only are they better than me but they also see a zillion more hands than I do every year.

Or it could be that they play mostly IMP/Team games.

Pre-balancing is a MP tactic...getting -100 instead of -110 isn't going to be real useful in IMPs. An automatic balance after 1♥-P-2♥-P-P is an MP tactic as well. I don't know if 1-2-3-stop is a good idea in MPs or not, but on the face of it it seems better there than IMPs.

For me, it shows a 6th heart and 13-14 hcp. I've heard (and believed) theories that a 6-3 fit where the 3 card hand has a singleton only requires 21 hcp for game, so if the guy with the 3 card suit has outside shortness he should bid game. On the other hand, since we have about half the hcp, I suppose it's also pre-emptive.

So is what I play 123 stop or an invitation?

[BebopKid]

Pass either way

[whereagles]

cardsharp, on May 18 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

So Justin, Josh and Fred are in agreement. That means that they are certainly right

nah.. them infidels are just being polluted by impure thoughts

repeat after me: "123 stop is GO(O)D"

[foo]

ArcLight, on May 18 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

What is the best use of the 3 level bid in the sequence 1♥-2♥-3♥ or 1♠-2♠-3♠?

Should is be a general purpose game try? (but you already have various game tries)

Or focus on Trump support?

How would experts play it?

The "best" use of a sequence depends on what useful hands you don't have other sequences for.

Here the "best" use of 1M-2M;3M depends on the rest of your Major suit structure. Particularly your Major suit Game Try structure.

One thing you can be sure of: experts are not going to be "hung up" on or addicted to HCP as their sole evaluation mechanism.

What hands will an expert make a Game Try with playing a "natural" system like SA or 2/1? Hands of medium playing strength for the bidding so far.

What general features will experts put into their Game Try structure?
Information that indicates how well the hands "fit" and how many tricks we rate to lose between the 2 hands.

So whatever a specific expert pair decides each of
1H-2H;2S
1H-2H;2N
2H-2H;3m
means, the hands worth inviting on that are not covered by the above are what
1H-2H;3H
should show.

If the 1st 3 sequences cover all your game tries to your satisfaction, then there may be some justification for allowing specific hands to use 1H-2H;3H as a "protect against them balancing" sequence.

[neilkaz]

whereagles, on May 18 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

cardsharp, on May 18 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

So Justin, Josh and Fred are in agreement. That means that they are certainly right

nah.. them infidels are just being polluted by impure thoughts

repeat after me: "123 stop is GO(O)D"

If you think 123 stop is good when ♠ is trump ..even at MP and most certainly at IMPS think again.

At MP 123 stop when ♥ is trump and opener is shortish in ♠ is OK, but at IMPs I really need to be short in ♠ and expect a 2♠ balance and have concerns 3♠ makes.

123 in minors makes more sence since there are two majors to be blocked out, but INVM solves that issue in general.

[fred]

foo, on May 18 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

So whatever a specific expert pair decides each of
1H-2H;2S
1H-2H;2N
2H-2H;3m
means,  the hands worth inviting on that are not covered by the above are what
1H-2H;3H
should show.

No offense intended, but I think this is nonsense (but you are in good company because a lot of people would agree with your thinking here).

Why should it have to be "best" that any of these bids should to be used as "game tries"?

Maybe "best" is to not use any game tries at all.

Maybe "best" is that 3H is your only game try.

Maybe "best" is to play 3H as a choice between 3NT and 4H, asking for specific Queens, or a slam try containing any void.

The "best" system is not necessarily the system that describes your hand the most accurately or asks your partner the perfect question - it is often the case that such descriptions and questions help your opponents more than they help your partnership decide between 3H, 4H, and 3NT.

Even if it could be demonstrated that there exists some objectively "best" use of these bids, it is not unlikely that whatever that these definitions consist of would be too difficult for anyone to remember and might vary greatly according to things like vulnerability, form of scoring, and your opponents' tendencies.

As far as I am concerned, "best" is whatever makes you and your partner the most comfortable. It is likely you will never win a tournament because your superior game try methods allow you to hit a home run. It is likely that you will lose a lot of tournaments because the methods you have agreed to play, even in the unlikely event that they are close to "best", are too much for you to handle and have a negative impact on the rest of your game.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

foo, on May 18 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

What general features will experts put into their Game Try structure?

Not many in my partnerships.

Here is what my regular partner and I play after 1H-2H:

- 2NT="I think we might belong in 3NT. What do you think?"
- 2S/3C/3D="I have 4+ cards in this suit. What do you think?"
- 3H="Do you have a minimum or a maximum?"

For us bidding a new suit is not likely to be a "game try" (though that is how partner treats it). More likely:

- A natural slam try that opens up the possibility of playing in 6 of the suit bid if a 4-4 fit exists
- A psych intended to disuade the opponents from leading the suit bid against what you know will be the inevitable 4H contract
- The bid of a suit you want led against the inevitable 4H contract (this is useful if you think your opponent might think that you are psyching)
- Giving partner a chance to bid 3NT if he has a maximum with all of his cards outside of your suits
- Giving the partnership a chance to get to 4 of the other major where a 9-card fit may be present while you have only an 8-card fit in the suit that has been bid and raised.

Partner responds as if your bid is a natural game try while catering to slam if he has 4+ cards in the suit you bid, typically by raising the "game try". Occasionally partner will show a source of tricks in yet another suit or bid notrump in response to the "game try".

More often than not, if we are dealt what most people think is a perfect hand for a natural game try, we will just bid game or maybe pass if we are playing against people we know are religious about The Law (especially if the vulnerability is right).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[sceptic]

Quote

2S/3C/3D="I have 4+ cards in this suit. What do you think?"

I dont quite understand how this can not be a game try, surely with (for example you bid 3 clubs, then if you have a double fit and hcp to justify the hand, your partner would bid game or if he does not he would bid 3 of the agreed major?

unless it is asking for help in that suit in which case it would still be a game try?

Quote

For us bidding a new suit is not likely to be a "game try" (though that is how partner treats it). More likely:

I am confused by what you are saying here Fred

[fred]

sceptic, on May 19 2007, 07:54 AM, said:

Quote

2S/3C/3D="I have 4+ cards in this suit. What do you think?"

I dont quite understand how this can not be a game try, surely with (for example you bid 3 clubs, then if you have a double fit and hcp to justify the hand, your partner would bid game or if he does not he would bid 3 of the agreed major?

unless it is asking for help in that suit in which case it would still be a game try?

Quote

For us bidding a new suit is not likely to be a "game try" (though that is how partner treats it). More likely:

I am confused by what you are saying here Fred

Sorry that my explanation was not clear. I will try again.

In my partnerships when the bidding goes, for example, 1H-2H-3C:

1) Most of the time opener is always planning on bidding game. In such cases the reason he is bidding 3C could be:

1a) He is interested in slam (including perhaps 6C as opposed to 6H)

or

1b) He wants partner to help make the decision between playing in 3NT vs. 4H

or

1c) He wants to try to direct or inhibit a particular opening lead

2) Some of the time opener really is trying for game (ie he will Pass a 3H rebid by responder).

Responder tries the cater his rebid to the possibility that opener's real intention might be either 1a, 1b, or 2. If opener's true intention is 1c that is none of responder's concern - responder is just along for the ride in this case.

So here is a brief summary of what responder's decision procedure should be:

- If responder has 4+ clubs he should give serious consideration to raising to 4C (to cater to possibility 1a)

- If responder has a notrumpy maximum with a lot of strength in the unbid suits he should bid 3NT (to cater to possibility 1b)

- If responder has a hand that evaluates to a minimum given what he knows about opener's distribution, he should bid 3H (to cater to possibility 2)

- If responder has a hand that evaluates to a maximum given what he knows about opener's distribution, he should never stop short of 4H (to cater to possibility 2) but he might want to bid something other than 4H at his 2nd turn (to cater to possibilities 1a or 1b). For example he might bid a new suit to suggest a concentration of strength or a source of tricks in that suit.

When responder reevaluates his hand after 3C, any honor in clubs becomes more valuable. Aces in the other suits and honors in trumps are always good cards, but Kings (and especially) Queens and Jacks in the other suits become less valuable.

Note that I managed to get through that without using the word "help" once

To summarize, responder treats 3C as a "game try" even though it is usually the case that opener is unwilling to play below game. However, responder will often bid something other than 3H or 4H at his second turn in order to cater to some of the intentions that opener might have.

Opener's intention is usually not to try for game (this has nothing to do with system - it is purely a matter of style).

However, a major part of responder's strategy in choosing his rebid is to assume that opener did in fact intend 3C as a game try.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

I like to play new suits by opener much like Fred has detailed here (thanks Fred for providing that additional detail, and so early in Vegas time too!). Also my (non-standard) preferences are:

3NT: we may belong in 3NT - you pick
2NT: general try or better, forcing to at least 3M - we could even belong in 3NT - either bid 3M if minimum, or, if non-minimum, bid 4M, or bid 3NT to offer choice, or describe hand - avoid the last option if possible as the opponents are listening in
3M: bid game if both a maximum and a shapely hand

So 1M-2M-3M can be bid on shapely minimum hands where it might pay to block the opponents, since responder will pass on the majority of hands, or, when responder bids game, then the game will have a good shot or be a cheap sacrifice.

[pclayton]

Justin: lets agree that reraising has its pluses and minuses.

Quote

pclayton, on May 18 2007, 01:08 PM, said:

When we hold the hearts, and they hold the spades; I want to shut out the imminent balancing double by LHO who is sitting behind me with a 4-1-4-4 9 count.

And how do you know all of this? Even if you have a stiff spade that doesn't mean they hold the spades. Partner can hold them.

Sure, Pard might hold the spades, but chances are that he has ♦, or ♣, or is balanced. Even if pard has 4 spades, 3♠ may be a playable strain when the ♥ opener has a s/v.

Quote

Quote

We may not buy it at the 3 level if we pass.

It's right to bid 3H only if they can bid and make 3S and you can make 3H. This is a very narrow window to shoot at.

Not really. I get:

1. A small gain when I go down in 3♥ versus their making 3♠.
2. I break even when they would have bid 2♠ and you compete to 3♥.
3. I get a gain when they can make 4 of a minor, and I get a small gain when I go down in 3♥, but they make 3/4 minor.
3. I break even when they compete to 3 minor and you compete back to 3♥.
5. The biggest gain is when I shut out their game with my reraise.

OTOH, not reraising is only right when:

1. We make exactly 8 tricks in hearts, and they can't make anything.
2. When they are able to profitably double us at 3, but not 2.
3. You get the information about how to play 3♥ as Fred suggests.

When we hold 9 trumps, either of these seems unlikely.

[pclayton]

fred, on May 18 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

Answer for PClayton:

Most of the people I play against:

1) Do not believe in the concept of the "prebalance"
2) Do not religously balance when the opponents stop in 2H with a known 8-card fit
3) Rarely if ever compete above the 3H level after the opponents stop in 2H and they balance
4) Sometimes go for a number when they  balance
5) Sometimes end up in the wrong suit when they balance
6) Tend to make pretty good opening leads even if they don't know what their partner's longest suit is
7) Tend to take fewer tricks on defense against 3H if they tell me about their distribution before we reach that contract
8) Tend to be able to win 5 tricks on defense when they are available

Hope this helps. I agree with most of your posts too by the way

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred:

All of this is good to know. I don't disagree with your 2-8, these seem to be common sense to me. The concept of 'letting' them balance does seem like a double edged sword with the information given and obtained, however.

Quote

1) Do not believe in the concept of the "prebalance"

I've always hated pre-balancing, and I am on record many times on here opposing it. I think its poor bridge because:

--frequently the opponents aren't limited and pre-balancing invites a disaster.
--when we don't win it, we have just told declarer how to play the hand.

Personally, I think pre-balancing was a fad of the early 90's that might have made its way into the expert community, but was discounted quickly. It is part of the way the vox populi thinks, however.

Quote

Hope this helps. I agree with most of your posts too by the way

Thanks

[jdonn]

Quote

It's right to bid 3H only if they can bid and make 3S and you can make 3H. This is a very narrow window to shoot at.

pclayton, on May 19 2007, 12:07 PM, said:

Not really. I get:

1. A small gain when I go down in 3♥ versus their making 3♠.

Only if they were bidding it. If not your small gain would have been either the same, or a bigger gain (if they don't balance at all.)

Quote

2. I break even when they would have bid 2♠ and you compete to 3♥.

You lose the information. It is of more use to you than to the defenders.

Quote

3. I get a gain when they can make 4 of a minor, and I get a small gain when I go down in 3♥, but they make 3/4 minor.

1: Again, only if they were bidding it.
2: Why are people worried that opponents with half the deck who have both passed already are about to make 4 of something?

Quote

3. I break even when they compete to 3 minor and you compete back to 3♥.

Again, you lost the info.

Quote

5. The biggest gain is when I shut out their game with my reraise.

As I said, what are the odds of this? Both opponents could have overcalled already, not even showing as much as an opening bid. You know they have just half the deck. Even when they balance and can make a lot, they don't know how much of a chance partner was taking and probably won't even bid 3.

Just think of it in terms of general principles. How can it be sound to preempt two players who have already passed, in the middle of your own constructive auction to boot?

Quote

OTOH, not reraising is only right when:

1. We make exactly 8 tricks in hearts, and they can't make anything.

Or less than 8. Or when they can make something but weren't going to bid at all.

Quote

2. When they are able to profitably double us at 3, but not 2.

3. You lost a bid that has value for constructive purposes.

(I should say sorry if I seem blunt, it's usually since I'm at work and rushing a bit hehe)

[foo]

"Fred" said:

As far as I am concerned, "best" is whatever makes you and your partner the most comfortable.

=EXACTLY= my point.

You also reinforced the rest of my point about expert bidding structures very nicely. thank you very much!

...as well as showing why 1M-2M;3M just may be more useful for purposes other than a "barrage" sequence.

In short, you and I are actually saying the same thing different ways and are in agreement here

[awm]

There's an alternative treatment to 123 stop that I've used in some partnerships. Basically:

3M shows game interest with a weak trump suit. It asks partner to bid game with help in trumps. You're also safe to make this bid with very good trumps (usually the case for a 123 stop hand) since partner will not accept the try.

It's also important to notice that the style in these auctions often depends on your opening and raise style. If you play very wide ranging raises you need game tries a lot more than if you play "constructive" raises or make limit raises very aggressively. If you open and raise very aggressively, then it's more likely opponents can actually make a game after your single raise auction (hey they could have 27 hcp and a pair of balanced hands) in which case 123 stop looks a lot better than it would if 1M-2M pretty much guarantees 18 hcp between you. In any case 123 stop (and bergen raises for that matter) make a lot more sense when your suit is hearts than when your suit is spades. Nonetheless I don't see a lot of people playing substantially different methods over the two major suit openings.

[Fluffy]

and...

how ofen do you play in 2NT after 1M-2M-2NT?