[Chamaco]

Scoring: MP

N....E....S....W
p....1D...X....p
1S...2D...2S...p
p....3D...all pass

---

We set 3D by one, when 3 Spades was cold, for a full bottom.

I was south, and I felt my hand was very offensive, but did not dare to go to the 3 level, red vs white, on my own, without any sign of life from North (for her bid she could hold a yarborough).

North, on the other hand, did not feel like competing at the 3 level at red vs white (by system, my 2S bid did not promise any extras, could be a featureless 12-13 count with 4 spades).

Now, skipping all "Law of total tricks" considerations (at red vs white, Matchpoints, being doubled offsets the law by a lot), who do you think should have bid 3 ?

[inquiry]

Chamaco, on Mar 21 2005, 10:41 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

N....E....S....W
p....1D...X....p
1S...2D...2S...p
p....3D...all pass

---

We set 3D by one, when 3 Spades was cold, for a full bottom.

I was south, and I felt my hand was very offensive, but did not dare to go to the 3 level, red vs white, on my own, without any sign of life from North (for her bid she could hold a yarborough).

North, on the other hand, did not feel like competing at the 3 level at red vs white (by system, my 2S bid did not promise any extras, could be a featureless 12-13 count with 4 spades).

Now, skipping all "Law of total tricks" considerations (at red vs white, Matchpoints, being doubled offsets the law by a lot), who do you think should have bid 3 ?

Your partner should have bid 2♠, not 1♠. Problem solved.

I certainly don't mind responding 1♠ with up to 10 hcp when holding four card suit (because I make light takeout doubles).

But with 6 to 10 hcp and five card major (five points ok with KQxxx or AJxxx), a jump is REQUIRED. I recommend...

1D-X-P-2S
3D-3S-

On this auction, 3S is "competitive" to play. Sure, you have fourteen, but your partner is limited to 10, and might have less. But you have sure 9 card fit. And your 14 is not that great a 14 given the distribution and likely duplication of values in spades.

Ben

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Mar 21 2005, 02:55 PM, said:

Your partner should have bid 2♠, not 1♠. Problem solved.

We have agreed that a jumpbid response to the t/o double would guarantee 8 losers: that allows to jump with less than the oldfashioned "standard" 9-10 hcp, if the distribution allows for it, similarly to your suggestion.

However, since here the hand is 9 losers, she had 1 loser too much, so she could not jump, by system .

If the system has to be changed, I'd like to differentiate between:
1. a "mixed" raise (9 losers)
2. limit raise
3. GF hand

Any suggestion on either :
a. an improved system that satisfies the above requirements ?
OR
b. the development of the auction given the fact she could not jump?

[Fluffy]

1♠ = 0-7
2♠= 8-11 4♠ cards
3♠= 8-11 5♠ cards

so to me 1♠ is correct, but after partner shows 4♠ with 2♠ north should bid 3♠ since he is the guy with the 9th trump.

[joker_gib]

Fluffy, on Mar 21 2005, 10:13 AM, said:

1♠ = 0-7
2♠= 8-11 4♠ cards
3♠= 8-11 5♠ cards

so to me 1♠ is correct, but after partner shows 4♠ with 2♠ north should bid 3♠ since he is the guy with the 9th trump.

Same for me, it's borderline for 2♠ directly but if I bid 1♠ which shows nothing at first round I will surely give 3♠ after with 5 trumps and max for my 1♠ bid !



Alain

[Chamaco]

Thanks to comments so far.

However, I am still puzzled.
I mean, would you bid 3S with North also with the following ?

Hand 1
♠ QTxxx
♥ xx
♦ AJx
♣ xxx

Instead of the actual hand:
Hand 2
♠ QTxxx
♥ xxx
♦ AJx
♣ xx

I have only switched 1 heart with 1 club, yet here 3S is down 1 (200 if doubled)
Consider also that South's hand could be much worse than the actual hand.
Say South hlds:

Hand 3
♠ AKJx
♥ KJxx
♦xx
♣ xxx

Instead of the actual
Hand 4
♠ AKJx
♥ KQJx
♦xx
♣ xxx

Now,
Hand2 + Hand 4 (the actual hands) = 9 tricks
Hand 1 + Hand 4 = 8 tricks
Hand 1 + Hand 3 = 7/8 tricks
Hand 2 + Hand 3 = 8/9 probably

I mean, the chances to go down are higher.

Also, South's hand could be even worse, say
Hand 5
♠ AKJx
♥ Qxxx
♦xx
♣ Qxx ,

When we are likely to go down 2, and even undoubled it will be a likely zero.

[mike777]

Fluffy, on Mar 21 2005, 10:13 AM, said:

1♠ = 0-7
2♠= 8-11 4♠ cards
3♠= 8-11 5♠ cards

so to me 1♠ is correct, but after partner shows 4♠ with 2♠ north should bid 3♠ since he is the guy with the 9th trump.

If you play that style you can end up in 3s with 5 across from 3 and 8hcp across from 12hcp then. I assume you want to be able to x with 3424 or 3415 shape.

Also if you rebid 2s here with a flat 12, how do you show a stronger hand over 2D? Remember P can have zero hcp at this point.

Just bid 2s with responder hand and cue with an invite or better hand.

[Chamaco]

mike777, on Mar 21 2005, 03:54 PM, said:

Also if you rebid 2s here with a flat 12, how do you show a stronger hand over 2D? Remember P can have zero hcp at this point.

I took this style from Lawrence's book on Takeout doubles.

He said that a free raise by the doubler should show a better than minimum hand if opener does not rebid, but if opener rebids, it only show support even with a bare minimum.

The concept is that the more contested the auction, the more you raise freely.

[pclayton]

North has a max 1♠ call. I play 2♠ as 8-11, but the J♦ is somewhat wasted, even though its protected on the opening lead.

South is stretching with a 2♠ call. You'd probably pass with this 7 loser hand if East doesn't compete, but a raise in traffic is OK.

Having said that, North should probably make a move directly over the raise. But its matchpoints, and his 5332 shape isn't appealing.

The only call I disagree with is the final pass by North. This is a mandatory 3♠ call. With one less spade, its a typical matchpoint cooperative double.

[inquiry]

If you like your jump to be 8 losers, than don't change a thing, and accept your result on this hand (his 9+ losers plus your 7 suggest 8 is the limit). There is no guarantees in bridge. Your loser count was off by one, due to the way the diamond suit matched up. This is the point to your moving a small heart and a small diamond around.

Of course, here is the problem with bidding just 1♠ on this hand...

1) It allows EAST to easily rebid 2♦, without promising a lot extra
2) It allows EAST to jump to 3♦ to show a lot extra
3) It makes it harder for you, the doubler, to know whether to compete to the three level (your partner might have 7 points and five or six spades, or 2 points and 3 spades).


The range -- DISTRIBUTION pattern for your 1♠ bid is too wide. If your partner had jumped to 2♠, odd are you would have bought the contract right there. If over 2♠ EAST bids 3♦, west might play him for a bigger hand than he actually held (now without a jump to 3♦ over 1♠, no chance of that), and bid again.

So, I am a big fan of jumping to 2 of major on these auctions to show five cards and some values (not much...)... and biddign only 1♠ with some significant values (up to 10 hcp) with only four cards.

You asked

Quote

If the system has to be changed, I'd like to differentiate between:
1. a "mixed" raise (9 losers)
2. limit raise
3. GF hand

I am not sure, you are talking about originally doubler's action here? With 9 losers just pass your partners jump to two level. With game force, doubler can cue-bid their suit or jump to game. With limit raise, opener raises freely outside competion, makes a new suit bid within competition, or if no room exist, uses double.... thus...

(1D)-X-P-2S
(3D)-3H <<---- game try in spades

(1D)-X-P-2S
(3D)-3S <<---- Competitive to play

(1D)-X-P-2S
(3D)-X <<---- Penalty oriented

but,
(1D)=X-P-2H
(3D)-3H <--- competitive to play

(1D)=X-P-2H
(3D)-X <--- Now invite to game in hearts.

When responding to their takeout double, cue-bid by advancer is forcing until suit agreement, thus

(1D)-X-P-2D
(P)-2H <--- 100% forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

Chamaco, on Mar 21 2005, 10:02 AM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 21 2005, 02:55 PM, said:

Your partner should have bid 2♠, not 1♠. Problem solved.

We have agreed that a jumpbid response to the t/o double would guarantee 8 losers: that allows to jump with less than the oldfashioned "standard" 9-10 hcp, if the distribution allows for it, similarly to your suggestion.

However, since here the hand is 9 losers, she had 1 loser too much, so she could not jump, by system .

If the system has to be changed, I'd like to differentiate between:
1. a "mixed" raise (9 losers)
2. limit raise
3. GF hand

Any suggestion on either :
a. an improved system that satisfies the above requirements ?
OR
b. the development of the auction given the fact she could not jump?

You could add a version of Good-Bad 2 NT (*)
and Maximum Doubles to your armory, which would
allow you to differentiate.
Both conventions are quite useful and will help you in
competitive auctions, ... and sometimes you will be able
to catch the opponents.

(*) I play reversed Good-Bad 2 NT, but this will play no role
in the folowing bidding sequence

e.g.

pass - (1D) - X - pass
1S - (2D) - 2S (1) - pass
pass - (3D) - pass (2)- pass
X (3) - pass - 3S

(1) competitive, an invitational sequence
could be initiatiated with the 2 NT relay,
which shows additional values, say 15-17,
requesting partner to bid 3C with minimal
values, a gameforce could be established
with a jump to 3S
(2) X instead of pass would show additional
values and an interest in game, implying
the ability to play 3S => Maximum Double
(3) see (2), because of the maximum and
because of the 5th spade

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Mar 21 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

You asked

Quote

If the system has to be changed, I'd like to differentiate between:
1. a "mixed" raise (9 losers)
2. limit raise
3. GF hand

I am not sure, you are talking about originally doubler's action here?

No, I mean the advancer.

I consider the response to the double as a "raise", so the responder to the double could have:

- negative hand
- preemptive hand
- "mixed raise" hand
- "invitational hand"
- GF hand

So far I am playing that jumps are 8 losers, invitational, and a cue is GF.
No way to discriminate with a 1st round bid between really bad hands and mixed raises.

[Chamaco]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 21 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

You could add a version of Good-Bad 2 NT (*)

We do play 2NT lebensohl by advancer (responder to t/o dbl).

But using artificial 2NT by the doubler is tricky:

Issue 1
we play Raptor, so X +NT might be neded for the strong balanced hand ?
Or do u suggest to use Dbl (after opener's rebid) as generic strong hand including the strong balanced and 2NT as artificial?

Issue 2

even using 2NT by opener as artificial commits to the 3 level opposite a pard who could hold a yarborough.
This is dangerous at red vs white.

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Mar 21 2005, 12:38 PM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 21 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

You asked

Quote

If the system has to be changed, I'd like to differentiate between:
1. a "mixed" raise (9 losers)
2. limit raise
3. GF hand

I am not sure, you are talking about originally doubler's action here?

No, I mean the advancer.

I consider the response to the double as a "raise", so the responder to the double could have:

- negative hand
- preemptive hand
- "mixed raise" hand
- "invitational hand"
- GF hand

So far I am playing that jumps are 8 losers, invitational, and a cue is GF.
No way to discriminate with a 1st round bid between really bad hands and mixed raises.

If you must play above then:

When p will be a passed hand, do you really need a GF bid by a passed hand? Do you really need to show a 9 loser hand with only 4 card support exactly?

[inquiry]

Chamaco, on Mar 21 2005, 01:38 PM, said:

No, I mean the advancer.

I consider the response to the double as a "raise", so the responder to the double could have:

- negative hand
- preemptive hand
- "mixed raise" hand
- "invitational hand"
- GF hand

So far I am playing that jumps are 8 losers, invitational, and a cue is GF.
No way to discriminate with a 1st round bid between really bad hands and mixed raises.

Ok.. here goes...

Negative hand

Simply bid suit at cheapest level. Negative here includes up to 10 hcp with four card suit (without competition).

preemptive hands

I don't preempt after my partner makes a takeout double. So I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. I might bid 4 of a major on weakish hand with lots in that suit, but you know what I mean.

"mixed raise

Ok, here I assume you mean the 8/9 loser hand. If it has a five card major, I jump to two of the major. This is always 10 points or less.

Limit raise

Let me divide this into two categories. The first, is with a long major. Here I jump to three of the major wiht 10-bad 13. If I have only a five card major, I will have more than 10, but with a six card major, might be as few as ten hcp.

The second category is where I don't have clear suit (say four card major) but the 11+ hcp (from game invite to slam force). Here I make a cue-bid (not game force, but nearly so.. forcing until suit agreement as I mentioned earlier). Advancer can, of course, force to game, and since cue-bid promises values, so can opener.

Game force

Can 1) just bid game, 2) start with cue-bid and then be careful not to raise partners suit to three level (which is not forcing), but instead bid beyond three nt, Jump in something after partner bids his suit, re-cue bid, etc. Can also start with cue-bid and then jump to 4M to show hand better than simple jump to four of a major.

Ben

[Chamaco]

Quote

When p will be a passed hand, do you really need a GF bid by a passed hand?

No.
In this case it can be invitational.
I did not mention this.

Quote

Do you really need to show a 9 loser hand with only 4 card support exactly?

Yes, I need the 9 losers raise, but not necesarily with limitations in support length.
I am strong believer in losers-based raises, at least in major suit contracts.
In my view/experince, they reflect more often than not the playing strength much better than most hcp - based methods.
Sometimes they do fail -oh well - but less often than common methods.

Let's say LTC-based raises wrk well for me because I am no expert, but I understand experts rely on their judgment rather than rigid rules

[luis]

Both :-) but North more than south.
To me 1♠ is fine, since in my partnership 2♠ shows more values and less spades than this hand.
Both hands have a strong O/D (offensive/defensive) offensive ratio so I think that both should go to 3♠ and specially North.

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Mar 21 2005, 12:55 PM, said:

Quote

When p will be a passed hand, do you really need a GF bid by a passed hand?

No.
In this case it can be invitational.
I did not mention this.

Quote

Do you really need to show a 9 loser hand with only 4 card support exactly?

Yes, I need the 9 losers raise, but not necesarily with limitations in support length.
I am strong believer in losers-based raises, at least in major suit contracts.
In my view/experince, they reflect more often than not the playing strength much better than most hcp - based methods.
Sometimes they do fail -oh well - but less often than common methods.

Let's say LTC-based raises wrk well for me because I am no expert, but I understand experts rely on their judgment rather than rigid rules

ok, but after a Take out x have no idea why this will be more important to show than other type hands.

[hotShot]

You have to decide how strong your dbl is and what you partner should consider minimum.
If partners hand was too weak to raise to 2♠ in your system, than your hand must have been stronger than your usual dbl.
Each time you set a limit you will sooner or later get a hand, where the limit is wrong. You have to accept it, or change the limit.

I think your looser limit is to strikt. This is why you ran in the problem.
In this situation partner has lots of bids to show his hand:
redbl
1,2,3♠
2♦
One of these five should fit his hand. I think 1♠ should be weakest, and this is not what your partner holds.

[mike777]

This sequence is quite a bit more old school than what Ben and others suggest:

P=1D=X=P
1S=2D=P=P
2S=3D=3S=P

1S=0-8(MINUS)
2S=SUGGESTS EXTRA LENGTH OR PLAYING STRENGTH GIVEN 1S BID.
3S=9 CARD SUGGESTED FIT, NO WASTED D, GOOD HEARTS

Also "fought the law" suggests 9 tricks:
13-4-0=9