[rhm]

OleBerg, on 2010-October-31, 01:37, said:

Bidding some sort of Jacoby 2NT will normally solve all your problems in uncontested auctions. And in contested auctions it is even more important.

The most importent thing for this hand, that cuebidding wont resolve (and some Jacoby variants leave in the dark too), is the danger of an undiscardable third-round spade loser. And 1♠ doesn't help much here.


I know I repeat myself, but bidding 2NT involves partner too. And is sends the most important message; I have four-card-support.

You do not repeat yourself, you contradict yourself.
And I beg to differ that 1♠ doesn't help much to distinguish between ♠ xx and ♠ xxx and ♠ QJx.
It does with any experienced Bridge player, while I do not know of one single Jacoby variant, which does not leave you in the dark about this crucial distinction.

Granted that a 1♠ response does not necessarily solve all problems and some continuations may get convoluted and ambiguous, but if 2NT is such a great bid with this hand please explain how you will reach 7♠ and avoid 7♥ when opener holds

♠QT65 ♥AKQ64 ♦3 ♣ A93 (Note that I changed just one card in opener's actual hand)

After 1♠ the bidding would be straight forward:

1♥-1♠
4♦-4NT
5♠-5NT
6♥-7♠

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

And how do you reach 2♠ if responder has

Kxxxx
x
Kxxx
xxx

?

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2010-November-01, 05:52, said:

And how do you reach 2♠ if responder has

Kxxxx
x
Kxxx
xxx

?

Opposite the actual hand

♠QT65 ♥KQ964 ♦3 ♣A93 I'd expect a simple raise of 1♠

opposite my suggestion

♠QT65 ♥AKQ64 ♦3 ♣A93 why would I want to be in 2♠?
4♠ looks quite reasonable.

Rainer Herrmann

[OleBerg]

rhm, on 2010-November-01, 05:48, said:

Granted that a 1♠ response does not necessarily solve all problems and some continuations may get convoluted and ambiguous, but if 2NT is such a great bid with this hand please explain how you will reach 7♠ and avoid 7♥ when opener holds

♠QT65 ♥AKQ64 ♦3 ♣ A93 (Note that I changed just one card in opener's actual hand)

I wont. Such things are for bidding-quizzes, fairy-tales or very artificial systems (typically relay-systems).

[gwnn]

Fair enough rhm my example hand generating skills are still lacking (I thought 4♦ is a slight overbid and 3♠ is enough, but maybe I'm wrong since I agree that 4♠ is where I'd like to be opposite K-5th and K-4th in ♦). However I am still interested - why do you think that between the following two cases:

• we must play spades to discard losers on hearts
  
• we must play in hearts to discard on spades

the first is more likely, or more warranted to be mentioned, than the second one? And how do you find out which is which during the bidding?

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2010-November-01, 07:04, said:

Fair enough rhm my example hand generating skills are still lacking (I thought 4♦ is a slight overbid and 3♠ is enough, but maybe I'm wrong since I agree that 4♠ is where I'd like to be opposite K-5th and K-4th in ♦). However I am still interested - why do you think that between the following two cases:

• we must play spades to discard losers on hearts
  
• we must play in hearts to discard on spades

the first is more likely, or more warranted to be mentioned, than the second one? And how do you find out which is which during the bidding?

The basic reason is that East is 2-2 in the minors. If opener has a minor suit shortage ♠ will play better.
If responder had a minor suit shortage agree hearts and splinter at some stage.
I agree that 4♦ is a slight but calculated overbid. The reason I prefer the overbid is that it still gives a very good description for slam purposes. Partner can immediately judge how well the hands fit.

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

It seems to be a close decision as to whether...

• ...To admit to a 9+card ♥ fit and game+ values or
• ...To inform partner that you have a ♠ suit.

(Although, IMO, the former seems preferable). An intriguing follow-up question. How would the 1♠ bid help in the hypothetical auction:
1♥ (_P) 1♠ (5♦)
?? (_P) ?? (_P)
?????

[rhm]

nige1, on 2010-November-01, 21:14, said:

It seems to be a close decision as to whether...

• ...To admit to a 9+card ♥ fit and game+ values or
• ...To inform partner that you have a ♠ suit.

(Although, IMO, the former seems preferable). An intriguing follow-up question. How would the 1♠ bid help in the hypothetical auction:
1♥ (_P) 1♠ (5♦)
?? (_P) ?? (_P)
?????

Opener would have to pass 5♦ initially for lack of strength, which is not forcing.
Responder is certainly too strong to pass 5 ♦
I think anyone with blood in his veins would now bid 5♥ which responder would correct to 5♠
But even if responder doubles 5♦, I can not see how opener at IMPs can pass with 4♠ to the queen and a singleton ♦.

As the bidding went after the 2NT response the decision is closer.
Opener's pass over 5♦ is now forcing.
Responder should deduce that opener would double with 2 cards in ♦ and a minimum.
Accordingly I think responders double was ill judged with the ♦ ace. The preemptor knows that he is missing this card. Responder should have bid 5♥.

Rainer Herrmann

[andy_h]

I agree with nige1 that there are clear benefits to bid 1S or to make a GF raise and that I am also slightly more inclined to to make the 4 card GF raise for a few reasons. It notifies partner that we have 4 card support whilst creating a forcing pass auction. Not only does this benefit against a preemption from 4th seat (as it happened) but they could just as easily bid 2x/3x with their partner preempting further to create more problems. Even a simple 2D overcall could make our auction weird if (and assuming) partner makes a support X and we want to be able to set hearts without pushing the auction too high (say we cuebid 3D partner bids 3NT). Another (slight) downside is that if we have a constructive auction to ourselves, partner may bid 2D or 2H and it could be very hard to catch up and it seems like I might struggle into telling partner about my fourth heart. I may not be able to find that magical grand, but I can still probably try after a GF raise with partner showing extras/shortage and after keycarding I might be able to ask for 3rd round spade control etc. Basically after a constructive auction, starting off with 2NT good things can still happen but after a competitive auction it seems like I'm more well placed.

[mikeh]

andy_h, on 2010-November-02, 08:17, said:

I agree with nige1 that there are clear benefits to bid 1S or to make a GF raise and that I am also slightly more inclined to to make the 4 card GF raise for a few reasons. It notifies partner that we have 4 card support whilst creating a forcing pass auction. Not only does this benefit against a preemption from 4th seat (as it happened) but they could just as easily bid 2x/3x with their partner preempting further to create more problems. Even a simple 2D overcall could make our auction weird if (and assuming) partner makes a support X and we want to be able to set hearts without pushing the auction too high (say we cuebid 3D partner bids 3NT). Another (slight) downside is that if we have a constructive auction to ourselves, partner may bid 2D or 2H and it could be very hard to catch up and it seems like I might struggle into telling partner about my fourth heart. I may not be able to find that magical grand, but I can still probably try after a GF raise with partner showing extras/shortage and after keycarding I might be able to ask for 3rd round spade control etc. Basically after a constructive auction, starting off with 2NT good things can still happen but after a competitive auction it seems like I'm more well placed.

A couple of observations:

1. Most good players strain to get into an opposition J2N auction, unless the vulnerability is unfavourable. Even quite good pairs (and some very good players in partnerships lacking extensive discussion) don't have agreements over interference. So the idea of J2N making life easier because it takes away a 2-level overcall applies only against weak opps or at favourable vul.

2. While one hand proves very little, the given hand is a classic example of why J2N with a good side suit is a silly idea. What was W supposed to bid over 5♦? What was East supposed to bid? It seems to me that the final result was unavoidable.

However, have East bid 1♠, and it seems to me that he will be endplayed, by the auction, into bidding 5♥.

After J2N, east has no reason to commit to 5♥, since he has already shown what he thought were the two main features of his hand.....4 trump and opening values. While after 1♠, East has to bid 5♥ because he has shown only one of the 3 main features.

Since to me AKxxx in a major is a holding I like, I truly don't understand the urge to use J2N.

BTW, after a 2 minor o'call of 1♠, I can't construct an auction in which I can't reach 4♥, regardless of whether partner makes a support double or not.

[andy_h]

mikeh, on 2010-November-02, 08:42, said:

A couple of observations:

1. Most good players strain to get into an opposition J2N auction, unless the vulnerability is unfavourable. Even quite good pairs (and some very good players in partnerships lacking extensive discussion) don't have agreements over interference. So the idea of J2N making life easier because it takes away a 2-level overcall applies only against weak opps or at favourable vul.

1. Yeap sure that's true but it may not be a downside at all. One of the objectives of 2NT was to handle preemption so all is not lost just yet.

mikeh, on 2010-November-02, 08:42, said:

2. While one hand proves very little, the given hand is a classic example of why J2N with a good side suit is a silly idea. What was W supposed to bid over 5♦? What was East supposed to bid? It seems to me that the final result was unavoidable.

However, have East bid 1♠, and it seems to me that he will be endplayed, by the auction, into bidding 5♥.

After J2N, east has no reason to commit to 5♥, since he has already shown what he thought were the two main features of his hand.....4 trump and opening values. While after 1♠, East has to bid 5♥ because he has shown only one of the 3 main features.

Since to me AKxxx in a major is a holding I like, I truly don't understand the urge to use J2N.

It may be a silly idea of not using J2NT, but I feel that it's even sillier to not have shown any form of support with the auction coming back at 5D to you. Over 2NT, West has the option of making a forcing (semi-encouraging) pass which East may choose to compete with 5H. Over 1S however, West has no luxury of making that same pass and East is put into more of a pickle (imo) because for all East knows West could have a weak NT and it might be better to defend rather than declare in case of a bad trump break. What I'm saying is that after the actual auction, I feel in a much better position after going through 2NT than if I had chosen 1S.

mikeh, on 2010-November-02, 08:42, said:

BTW, after a 2 minor o'call of 1♠, I can't construct an auction in which I can't reach 4♥, regardless of whether partner makes a support double or not.

I wasn't saying that you can never reach 4H, all I meant was that of course most of the time you would end in 4H, but you feel to be a tempo behind in the bidding because you haven't shown your 4th trump. Imagine the auction 1H-1S-(2D)-X-(3D) or 1H-1S-(3C)-X and it feels as if 4H is an underbid or we're about to have a murky auction.

[rhm]

mikeh, on 2010-November-02, 08:42, said:

After J2N, east has no reason to commit to 5♥, since he has already shown what he thought were the two main features of his hand.....4 trump and opening values. While after 1♠, East has to bid 5♥ because he has shown only one of the 3 main features.

I am a 1♠ bidder, but I do not understand this sort of argument.
East has not the typical balanced 4 card raise expected by J2NT. He has a good 5 card side suit (source of tricks) and all his points seem to work.
West makes a forcing pass, which most consider an advantage (I don't).
But if you are in a forcing pass situation you have to ask yourself what DBL by West would have meant here.
I would say a hand where I would like to warn partner not to bid on.
Typically it shows a minimum opening with 2 cards in ♦.
There are a few other hands I double with. For example I would also double if I had a minimum with no ace even with a singleton ♦.
Consequently East knows that West has either a singleton ♦ or extra, probably not both unless West intends to pull the double anyway.

5♥ must be odds on.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2010-November-01, 05:48, said:

Granted that a 1♠ response does not necessarily solve all problems and some continuations may get convoluted and ambiguous, but if 2NT is such a great bid with this hand please explain how you will reach 7♠ and avoid 7♥ when opener holds

♠QT65 ♥AKQ64 ♦3 ♣ A93 (Note that I changed just one card in opener's actual hand)

How about 1H - 2N!; 3D! - 3S; 4S followed by 6KCB?

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-02, 18:40, said:

How about 1H - 2N!; 3D! - 3S; 4S followed by 6KCB?

This assumes that neither 3♠ nor 4♠ are understood as control showing.
I bet most would consider trump agreement is etched in stone after Jacoby 2NT.
Many would claim that 3♠ is the start of a cue bidding sequence. After this start how often would you like to show a ♠ suit and how often would you want to start a cue bidding sequence? 4♠ in response to 3♠ may or may not show a secondary suit but would deny a ♣ control.
In my view it is best to confine the Jacoby 2NT response to balanced hands and possibly to hands, which are too strong to splinter immediately, but not hands with a good 5 card or longer side suit.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2010-November-03, 05:07, said:

This assumes that neither 3♠ nor 4♠ are understood as control showing.
I bet most would consider trump agreement is etched in stone after Jacoby 2NT.
Many would claim that 3♠ is the start of a cue bidding sequence. After this start how often would you like to show a ♠ suit and how often would you want to start a cue bidding sequence? 4♠ in response to 3♠ may or may not show a secondary suit but would deny a ♣ control.

I don't think it is a matter of "considering" or "claiming" a particular meaning for 3♠. A partnership will (or should) agree what 3♠ means. That meaning may well vary from one partnership to another.

In any sequence, the meanings of bids depend on what hands each partner can have. If you agree to respond 2NT when you have a strong side-suit, you should probably agree upon a way to show the suit subsequently. If you agree not to respond 2NT on such hands, you don't need a way to show a strong side-suit.

In partnerships where this is a 2NT bid, it makes sense for 1♥-2NT;3x-3♠ to show a second-suit. After that, it makes sense to have a way to agree spades unambiguously, and another way to cue-bid with hearts agreed. If 1♥-2NT;3x-3♠ shows a second suit, you might agree to bid 1♥-2NT;3m-3♥ or 1♥-2NT;3♥-3NT on the hands where you want to initiate cue-bidding. That may lead to less effective sequences when responder has a balanced game-force, but there is a corresponding gain on the hands where he responds 1♠.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-November-03, 06:35

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2010-November-03, 05:07, said:

This assumes that neither 3♠ nor 4♠ are understood as control showing.
I bet most would consider trump agreement is etched in stone after Jacoby 2NT.
Many would claim that 3♠ is the start of a cue bidding sequence. After this start how often would you like to show a ♠ suit and how often would you want to start a cue bidding sequence? 4♠ in response to 3♠ may or may not show a secondary suit but would deny a ♣ control.
In my view it is best to confine the Jacoby 2NT response to balanced hands and possibly to hands, which are too strong to splinter immediately, but not hands with a good 5 card or longer side suit.

If you play a style where you give support immediately then having a natural slam try available where possible makes sense. After 1H - 2NT - 3m you can initiate a cue-bidding auction through simply bidding 3H so higher bids are spare. Even if you respond 1S on this kind of hand it makes sense to assign another meaning to 3S after 3m here, most likely shortage in that case. 4S in response to a natural slam try of 3S shows good spade support and acceptance of the slam try. I think this message is more important than the club control and you cannot have it both ways in this instance.

[bucky]

dake50, on 2010-October-31, 02:13, said:

West made a "I want to suggest higher" instead of double to suggest "I fear higher".
Yet East with 4-support + 5-suit to AK + DA didn't go?? A-stounding!

I think this is a bit harsh. It is not like East had 5th or 6th heart. The 2NT bid ALREADY SHOWED 4-card support, so this should not be a factor in deciding whether to bid at 5 level. The five-card spade suit headed by AK, together with DA, argues for bidding. The mediocre trump support and lack of overall strength suggests defense. I think it's a tough call. I would have a slight nod for bidding on, since the likely shortness in partner's diamond increases the chance of reasonable fit in spades. But I consider it far from clear-cut. Move one of West's club to diamond, should West still make an encouraging pass? Should East still bid?

[robertb]

I am not sure I agree with either pass of five diamonds.

The expected value for the opening bid is a losing trick count of seven - not six - and 2 1/2 quick tricks - not two. I've only made one bid; but I know I have a fit, and my hand is better than minimun in offensive terms, and my quick trick in hearts is likely worthless defensively. If partner has four tricks against diamonds, maybe we can make slam. Based solely on LTC, I expect our side to take 11 tricks here.

I would bid five hearts over five diamonds, and, if I did pass, I think I would then bid on anyway after the double; partner is unlikely to take me for a defensively oriented hand, although there's certainly a risk that I'll find myself in six when partner has a bad trump suit.

[phil_20686]

TimG, on 2010-October-30, 15:59, said:

Won't East be likely to bid 5♥ here? Perhaps that is a argument for showing the fit immediately rather than starting with 1♠, but I think once East starts down that path he has to go through with showing hearts at his next turn.

Great a bad bid initially endplays east into showing his heart support regardless of what south does, and it works great on this hand. Not so great when partner has as stiff spade and you are off in 5h with 5dx going for 500. (bad bid is too strong, but i have a strong preference for 2NT)

I think I am with the people who would bid 5h over 5d after the forcing pass. However, it is pretty close. A forcing pass should show working values outside diamonds. It is not hard to place him with decent trumps and a spade honour: Qjx AKxxx x Axxx seems to give you plenty of play for 5h, and if trumps are 4-0 or something you probably weren't beating 5d. I dont mind -1 vs -1. Partner should not be passing willy nilly here.

Bidding 1s on these hands probably does have some advantages, but it can make many auctions murky. Even after 1h-1s-2s you may not be able to sort out which is your best strain for game. Partner may be only 5-3 in the majors, and if you bid 3h that might only be 5-3 also. Ince you now need more bids to sort out the strain you have less available for slam investigation, and having to cater to hands which may hold 4 or more card trump support in constructive slam auctions makes it harder to show 2 card support. Now 1h-1s-3d-2h could be up to 5 hearts, and when partner bids 3N you have little or no chance to investigate a heart slam compared to had you responded J2N and found partner to be 5-5 or 5-4-3-1 with a shortage in clubs.

[rhm]

phil_20686, on 2010-November-04, 06:32, said:

Great a bad bid initially endplays east into showing his heart support regardless of what south does, and it works great on this hand. Not so great when partner has as stiff spade and you are off in 5h with 5dx going for 500. (bad bid is too strong, but i have a strong preference for 2NT)

I am a 1♠ bidder, but I agree this is not a great argument in favor of 1♠
However, if partner has a stiff spade and you bid 1♠ over 1♥, guess what partner will do when South bids 5♦. In this case you are certainly better of than if you had bid J2NT instead.

Quote

I think I am with the people who would bid 5h over 5d after the forcing pass. However, it is pretty close.

No it is not and I consider it a serious error in judgment. If West would have doubled 5♦ after J2N accepting the DBL by East would have been close. It is also clear that you will not get rich from doubling a 5♦ preemptor and you never know how freak such a preempt is. As here you can not even completely discount the possibility that 5♦ has chances.

Quote

A forcing pass should show working values outside diamonds. It is not hard to place him with decent trumps and a spade honour: Qjx AKxxx x Axxx seems to give you plenty of play for 5h, and if trumps are 4-0 or something you probably weren't beating 5d. I dont mind -1 vs -1. Partner should not be passing willy nilly here.

Exactly. So why is 5♥ a close bid?

Quote

Bidding 1s on these hands probably does have some advantages, but it can make many auctions murky. Even after 1h-1s-2s you may not be able to sort out which is your best strain for game. Partner may be only 5-3 in the majors, and if you bid 3h that might only be 5-3 also.

I admit when both sides know about their nine card fit that is useful information. But it seems to me that some are obsessed with the value of the ninth trump. This is an important asset, but not one against which all other features of a hand pale in comparison. Sometimes slam will be good on a 4-4 fit, 5-3 fit etc. and sometimes slam may be bad on a 5-4 fit.

Here after 1♥-1♠-2♠-3♥ both sides would know about a fit in 2 suits, which gives both partners a chance to evaluate their double fit. For example they can see whether all their secondary honors (K,Q,J) are in their fit suits. Both can see whether they have extra length in the fit suit, even if they have not yet relayed that to partner. Why would that be a bad platform for starting slam investigation now? Is this really a disadvantage compared to J2N, where you only know about a single suit?

Quote

Once you now need more bids to sort out the strain you have less available for slam investigation, and having to cater to hands which may hold 4 or more card trump support in constructive slam auctions makes it harder to show 2 card support. Now 1h-1s-3d-2h could be up to 5 hearts, and when partner bids 3N you have little or no chance to investigate a heart slam compared to had you responded J2N and found partner to be 5-5 or 5-4-3-1 with a shortage in clubs.

Sorry this is not comprehensible to me. Can you clarify your examples? They seem to be a misprint.

Rainer Herrmann