[lamford]

cherdano, on 2012-January-27, 17:12, said:

But this is posted in the A/E forum, so I hope we are allowed to assume partner is not an idiot.

I agree that partner will always raise 2H with four, and I think the problem hands are when partner is 1-3 in the majors. He will almost always put the dummy down in 2H, but a simulation suggests this is completely wrong. The assumptions are as follows:

Partner: 6-9 points; 1-3-?-?; Play by both sides double dummy, which if anything favours the defence on this type of hand, where leading trumps or not leading trumps could be critical.

The results: 4H makes 58.7% of the time; 3NT would make 24.9% of the time.

This does not mean that 3H is beter than 2H, but it does alert us to the real risk of missing a good game.

[gnasher]

6-9 points doesn't sound quite right - it's not 1965 any more.

With that shape I think a range of 5-10 is closer to reality. I expect that will make the odds of game a bit better.

[rhm]

cherdano, on 2012-January-27, 17:12, said:

But this is posted in the A/E forum, so I hope we are allowed to assume partner is not an idiot.

Why is partner an idiot if he passes 2♥?

---

I would find 2♥ quite a challenging contract already.
A 4♦ bid looks to me a bit absurd.

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-January-27, 17:39, said:

6-9 points doesn't sound quite right - it's not 1965 any more.

With that shape I think a range of 5-10 is closer to reality. I expect that will make the odds of game a bit better.

It did. Under the same terms, I had 65.8% for 4H making, and 31.0% for 3NT by partner. Interestingly there were 5.2% of making slams in hearts, which will be played in 2H!

[mikeh]

lamford, on 2012-January-27, 17:33, said:

I agree that partner will always raise 2H with four, and I think the problem hands are when partner is 1-3 in the majors. He will almost always put the dummy down in 2H, but a simulation suggests this is completely wrong. The assumptions are as follows:

Partner: 6-9 points; 1-3-?-?; Play by both sides double dummy, which if anything favours the defence on this type of hand, where leading trumps or not leading trumps could be critical.

The results: 4H makes 58.7% of the time; 3NT would make 24.9% of the time.

This does not mean that 3H is beter than 2H, but it does alert us to the real risk of missing a good game.

If the idea of the simulation is to show that on a specified subset of hands on which partner passes 2♥, we ought to have bid 3♥, then fine, but essentially of marginal relevance at best to the question of the best rebid as opener.

Everyone who says 2♥ is right recognizes that they will miss some games. Nobody needs a simulation to prove that. I suspect that, as with me, their concerns are not only about missing some games, but also about the far more common scenario in which a gf 3♥ gets us to a silly contract. Even at imps, vulnerable, there is a point where accumulating many minuses for every plus makes overbidding uneconomic.

A simulation, to be of assistance, should constrain the responding hand such that it would pass 2♥.

Then we try to determine which games we would reach on those hands after the gf 3♥, and see how we do.

It won't be easy, since double dummy solutions don't help with figuring out, on borderline hands, how the auction would go, nor when the opps might be able to start doubling.

I wouldn't agree with your constraints, by the way. As Andy pointed out, a lot of players don't need 6 points....I rarely, if ever, pass with an Ace and most 5 counts will get me bidding. And on a weak hand, I won't raise 2♥ even with 4 card support, and other posts here show that that is not an unusual approach....nor should it be....it is absurd to play that one must always raise with 4 cards....it deprives the raise of any real meaning. What do we do with an invite? Jump to game????? And before anyone says that one should stretch, I agree....but there will always be hands that don't warrant 4♥ and do warrant a try....forcing us to raise on all 4 card support makes opener's choice a crapshoot.

[benlessard]

I think 2H is clear and its not too tough to see why.

Most hands with 4H will raise to 3H. To pass 2H with

x
Axxx
KJxxx
xxx

is a joke, If you play 2H making 6 that its because you dont know what a courtesy raise is. Of course making courtesy raise will lead to 3H going down while 2H is the limit but often they can compete to 3m anyway, if your going down in 3H in a 4/4 fit often they make 3m and can bit it anyway.

Most 23?? will also bid 2S, over wich its going to be easy to play 3H/4H accordingly, if it goes 1S--3H--responder will often bid 3NT rather than the correct 4H, if the contract is between 4H/3NT or between 3H/4H bidding 2H will turn out much better (this is different if you play some gadget allowing 3H to show 5-5). Like Frances said some slam are even easier to bid after 1S--1nt--2H than after 1S--NT--3H (but its rare so i wouldnt worry about it) If partner has 23?? garbage He should pass 2H hoping that the 43 will play as good as the 52 fit, with those hand its much better than to play 2H than any games.

So IMO the only case in favor of 3H is medium hands 13?? or 03?? wich are very narrow in frequency compared to the others cases. Lamford is right in saying that with Axxxx and good KQxxx will overbid more than with KQxxx and Axxxx since 13 is possible but not 31. If responder has 13?? and a range of 5-11 for the 1Nt, I expect responder to bid 2NT or making a 3 card raise with 10-11. With 5/6 game doesnt rate to be good. So only 7-9 pts 13 where game is going to be 55%-58% are a problem.

[rhm]

benlessard, on 2012-January-27, 22:06, said:

I think 2H is clear and its not too tough to see why.

Most hands with 4H will raise to 3H. To pass 2H with

x
Axxx
KJxxx
xxx

is a joke, If you play 2H making 6 that its because you dont know what a courtesy raise is. Of course making courtesy raise will lead to 3H going down while 2H is the limit but often they can compete to 3m anyway, if your going down in 3H in a 4/4 fit often they make 3m and can bit it anyway.

Most 23?? will also bid 2S, over wich its going to be easy to play 3H/4H accordingly, if it goes 1S--3H--responder will often bid 3NT rather than the correct 4H, if the contract is between 4H/3NT or between 3H/4H bidding 2H will turn out much better (this is different if you play some gadget allowing 3H to show 5-5). Like Frances said some slam are even easier to bid after 1S--1nt--2H than after 1S--NT--3H (but its rare so i wouldnt worry about it) If partner has 23?? garbage He should pass 2H hoping that the 43 will play as good as the 52 fit, with those hand its much better than to play 2H than any games.

So IMO the only case in favor of 3H is medium hands 13?? or 03?? wich are very narrow in frequency compared to the others cases. Lamford is right in saying that with Axxxx and good KQxxx will overbid more than with KQxxx and Axxxx since 13 is possible but not 31. If responder has 13?? and a range of 5-11 for the 1Nt, I expect responder to bid 2NT or making a 3 card raise with 10-11. With 5/6 game doesnt rate to be good. So only 7-9 pts 13 where game is going to be 55%-58% are a problem.

All these arguments sound shallow to me.
On frequency grounds alone if the bidding starts 1S-1NT-2H opener will be 5-4 in the majors most of the time, simply because 5-4 distributions are much more common than 5-5 (or more extreme distributions).
The same holds true for opener's strength. He is much more likely to hold a minimum opening than having extras, simply because hands in the range 11-13 HCP are also more frequent than 14-16 HCP, in particular when opener has an unbalanced distribution.
The danger of making courtesy raises, is not only that you will often go down in 3♥ with nothing on for opponents (what contract are they suppose to bid and make past 2♥?), responder will also have to raise to game if he is stronger, since opener has no way of differentiating real invites from courtesy raises, and now you will go down in 4♥ when opener would have rejected a stronger invite and would have made 3♥. Sometimes 4♥ will get doubled.

You are simply overbidding most of the time whenever you hold 4 hearts for fear of missing game.

Now let us look at responders distributions if he has less than 4 hearts. Responder is clearly not likely to have spade support. He will hold 0-2 spades most of the time. So why are medium hands with 13 or 03 very narrow in frequency compared to other cases?
It seems to me that such hands are quite likely hands for partner's 1NT response.

The way I see it the 2♥ bidders favor a timid approach for opener and need to compensate with an aggressive approach for responder.

The result: they will miss some games (and slams!), they will rarely be able to stop in 2♥ even when game has no chance, because responder is supposed to keep the bidding open on the slightest excuse.

The 3♥ bidders, will sometimes get overboard, when the deal is a complete misfit and responder is minimum. However, some of the time they will reach a making 3NT, on a misfit, which the 2♥ bidders will miss.
The irony is that the 3♥ bidder will stop far more frequently in 2♥ when game has no chance, simply because they do not put so much pressure on responder to keep the bidding open, and minimum hands for opener are common.

Rainer Herrmann

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2012-January-27, 17:33, said:

I agree that partner will always raise 2H with four, and I think the problem hands are when partner is 1-3 in the majors. He will almost always put the dummy down in 2H, but a simulation suggests this is completely wrong. The assumptions are as follows:

Partner: 6-9 points; 1-3-?-?; Play by both sides double dummy, which if anything favours the defence on this type of hand, where leading trumps or not leading trumps could be critical.

You've already posted a hand in another forum where you give as a problem what responder should rebid on a 1=5=5=2 five-count with 2 queens and a jack, without any comment about the merits of a 1NT response. So I assume your simulation should include 1=3=4=5 hands such as x xxx Q10xx QJxxx as you seem to think these are a 1NT response.

[phil_20686]

rhm, on 2012-January-27, 17:49, said:

Why is partner an idiot if he passes 2♥?

---

I would find 2♥ quite a challenging contract already.
A 4♦ bid looks to me a bit absurd.

Rainer Herrmann

Passing 2H with the north hand is absurd rainer.

[mikeh]

rhm, on 2012-January-27, 17:49, said:

Why is partner an idiot if he passes 2♥?

---

I would find 2♥ quite a challenging contract already.
A 4♦ bid looks to me a bit absurd.

Rainer Herrmann

You make some good arguments, but using this construction to prove your point weakens your overall credibility.

The S hand, with those delightful spots, is a borderline opening bid...while most would open it, passing can hardly be criticized in a 2/1 context.

And nobody...including, I suggest, you....designs a bidding method so as to avoid bad contracts when both partners are minimum and the hands don't mesh. If you do...well....you are missing a lot of good contracts. And the fact that you seem to espouse a 3♥ rebid, to me, shows that you prefer to overbid than to underbid. The reality is that 2/1 methods have wide ranges for 1 bids and wide ranges for the 1N response, which automatically means that the 2nd and 3rd rounds of auctions are going to be uncomfortable. When you and partner decide where to draw the lines, there will be where you find problems, no matter where you draw the line.

Gadgets help...they have a cost of course, but good gadgets embedded in a coherent method, fill in many gaps and narrow others. The OP was, I assume, asking in the context of a method lacking such gadgets....and asking where one draws this particular line between 2♥ and 3♥. It is apparent that there are tqo schools of thought and, not surprisingly, no unanimity on collateral questions even within a given school.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-28, 05:52, said:

You've already posted a hand in another forum where you give as a problem what responder should rebid on a 1=5=5=2 five-count with 2 queens and a jack, without any comment about the merits of a 1NT response. So I assume your simulation should include 1=3=4=5 hands such as x xxx Q10xx QJxxx as you seem to think these are a 1NT response.

I originally included only hands with 6-9 points, as you could see from the terms of that simulation. But I then changed this to 5-10 on gnasher's valid protestation that I was living in 1965. Changing the range increased the chance of success of 4H, so I do not think 2H is "obvious". The downside to it is missing a lot of games.

[phil_20686]

lamford, on 2012-January-28, 18:11, said:

I originally included only hands with 6-9 points, as you could see from the terms of that simulation. But I then changed this to 5-10 on gnasher's valid protestation that I was living in 1965. Changing the range increased the chance of success of 4H, so I do not think 2H is "obvious". The downside to it is missing a lot of games.

Its obvious that would increase it, since ten HCP is twice as common as 5 HCP roughly.

However, partner should basically never be passing 2h with ten HCP unless he has a 1-3 in the majors. Even then he normally has to be 13(45) since hands with a 6 card minor and 10-11 HCP normally have some sequence that shows them, either bidding 3m now or bidding 3m over 1M.

[ArtK78]

dboxley, on 2012-January-25, 17:59, said:

---

your bid

This hand has created quite a bit of interesting discussion.

Fortunately, I would not have to deal with it, as my 3♥ rebid shows 5-5 in the majors with invitational values (approximately 16HCP).

Rebid structure after 1♠-1NT:

2♣ - 2+ clubs, minimum opening without 6 spades, 4 hearts or 4 diamonds. (Using 2♣ as the rebid on all hands without a real second suit other than clubs allows responder to bid 2♦ BART on appropriate hands).
2♦ - 4+ diamonds, minimum hand.
2♥ - 4+ hearts, minimum hand.
2♠ - 6+ spades, minimum hand.
2NT - a good 16-18 HCP balanced (possibly a bad 19 HCP, if such a thing exists).
3♣ - Game Forcing one or two suited hand (2nd suit not specified). Over responder's 3♦ relay, opener rebids:
------3♥ - 5+ spades, 4+ hearts, game forcing, willing to play 3NT.
------3♠ - 5+ spades, 4+ clubs, game forcing, willing to play 3NT.
------3NT - 5+ spades, 4+ diamonds, game forcing, but responder can pass 3NT.
------4♣ - 5+ spades, 4+ clubs, game forcing. Not willing to play 3NT.
------4♦ - 5+ spades, 4+ diamonds, game forcing. Not willing to play 3NT.
------4♥ - 5+ spades, 5+ hearts.
------4♠ - One suited hand.
3♦ - 5+ spades, 5+ diamonds, invitational values, not forcing.
3♥ - 5+ spades, 5+ hearts, invitational values, not forcing.
3♠ - 6+ spades, invitational values, not forcing.
3NT - Solid 6+ spades.
etc.

The only 5-5 invitational hand that cannot be shown directly in this structure is 5-5 in the blacks.

So, on the original hand, opener can rebid 3♥ and turn over the final decision to responder.

[mike777]

ArtK78, on 2012-January-29, 11:32, said:

This hand has created quite a bit of interesting discussion.

Fortunately, I would not have to deal with it, as my 3♥ rebid shows 5-5 in the majors with invitational values (approximately 16HCP).

Rebid structure after 1♠-1NT:

2♣ - 2+ clubs, minimum opening without 6 spades, 4 hearts or 4 diamonds. (Using 2♣ as the rebid on all hands without a real second suit other than clubs allows responder to bid 2♦ BART on appropriate hands).
2♦ - 4+ diamonds, minimum hand.
2♥ - 4+ hearts, minimum hand.
2♠ - 6+ spades, minimum hand.
2NT - a good 16-18 HCP balanced (possibly a bad 19 HCP, if such a thing exists).
3♣ - Game Forcing one or two suited hand (2nd suit not specified). Over responder's 3♦ relay, opener rebids:
------3♥ - 5+ spades, 4+ hearts, game forcing, willing to play 3NT.
------3♠ - 5+ spades, 4+ clubs, game forcing, willing to play 3NT.
------3NT - 5+ spades, 4+ diamonds, game forcing, but responder can pass 3NT.
------4♣ - 5+ spades, 4+ clubs, game forcing. Not willing to play 3NT.
------4♦ - 5+ spades, 4+ diamonds, game forcing. Not willing to play 3NT.
------4♥ - 5+ spades, 5+ hearts.
------4♠ - One suited hand.
3♦ - 5+ spades, 5+ diamonds, invitational values, not forcing.
3♥ - 5+ spades, 5+ hearts, invitational values, not forcing.
3♠ - 6+ spades, invitational values, not forcing.
3NT - Solid 6+ spades.
etc.

The only 5-5 invitational hand that cannot be shown directly in this structure is 5-5 in the blacks.

So, on the original hand, opener can rebid 3♥ and turn over the final decision to responder.

Hi Art:

You dont seem to have a bid for 5s and 4h and around 14-15 or more but less than gf?


2h is less(10-13) and 3c or 3h is more.

[ArtK78]

mike777, on 2012-January-29, 11:43, said:

Hi Art:

You dont seem to have a bid for 5s and 4h and around 14-15 or more but less than gf?


2h is less(10-13) and 3c or 3h is more.

No, 2♥ shows 5+ spades and 4+ hearts and less than a game force. Typically 11-16. Perhaps I should not have used the term "minimum hand" and instead stated "less than game forcing values."

This is a standard rebid, the same that anyone else would make. The point is that if playing that 3♥ shows 5-5 and invitational values, responder knows that opener cannot have that hand when opener rebids 2♥. Either opener will not have 5+ hearts or opener will have less values than the 3♥ rebid would show (or both).

The rebid scheme shown in my previous post came from an article in The Bridge World some years ago. The method includes rebids over 1♥ - 1NT as well, where a 2♠ rebid shows the strong hands (as well as invitational hands with hearts and spades). Over 1♥ - 1NT, one can show invitational 2 suiters in all combinations, as both the 3♣ rebid and the 3♦ rebids show 5-5 invitational nonforcing hands, and a two suiter with hearts and spades is one of the various types of hands shown through the 2♠ rebid.

[mike777]

ArtK78, on 2012-January-29, 15:36, said:

No, 2♥ shows 5+ spades and 4+ hearts and less than a game force. Typically 11-16.

This is a standard rebid, the same that anyone else would make. The point is that if playing that 3♥ shows 5-5 and invitational values, responder knows that opener cannot have that good a hand when opener rebids 2♥.

ok I thought so, I just would not say 2h promises a minimum hand.

[aguahombre]

Partner knows the wide range of the 2H rebid. It was also explored in a recent ACBL Bulletin. Responder raises with less and a heart fit, than on other auctions. If she rebids anything else and we have this hand, we will bid again in hearts ourselves. Not really a problem.

With 2-3 in the majors and weakness, pard will pref to 2S and we still rebid 3H. Only with 1-3 and weakness will partner pass 2H, and that is fine as well.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-29, 16:40, said:

Only with 1-3 and weakness will partner pass 2H, and that is fine as well.

What does partner do with 1-3 and reasonable strength, say 7-9?

[mike777]

lamford, on 2012-January-29, 17:03, said:

What does partner do with 1-3 and reasonable strength, say 7-9?

I would still bid 2s, not perfect but the opp are silent.


Pard may have 6s\

pard may have big hand.

we will be worse off if pard is 55 and minimum.

[aguahombre]

With the 1-3 hands of concern, responder will have already decided what to do after the expected 2H rebid. Jumping to 3H by opener won't help anything in that case, and will most likey get us to a poor 4H contract when responder is on the weak side.