[Apollo81]

♠ x
♥ J107xx
♦ AKxx
♣ KJx

white IMPs

1♥-1N
2♦-3♥
???

[inquiry]

I tend to bid game opposite limit raises when holding a singleton. This hand certainly qualifies as I have a singleton and some reasonable values. At imps I will bid game 100% time if vul. At matchpoints I probably would pass, as I think few will bid the game and it is close.

[pbleighton]

Pass.

Peter

[Apollo81]

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

I tend to bid game opposite limit raises when holding a singleton. This hand certainly qualifies as I have a singleton and some reasonable values. At imps I will bid game 100% time if vul. At matchpoints I probably would pass, as I think few will bid the game and it is close.

I think this is backwards from the best general strategy

[inquiry]

Apollo81, on Feb 21 2007, 02:50 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

I tend to bid game opposite limit raises when holding a singleton. This hand certainly qualifies as I have a singleton and some reasonable values. At imps I will bid game 100% time if vul. At matchpoints I probably would pass, as I think few will bid the game and it is close.

I think this is backwards from the best general strategy

Which part do you think is backward? don't bid game when holding a singleton and bid game when relatively balanced?

Or was my bid game lighter (as in this case) when vul at imps, but not bid game light when at MP?

[mike777]

...I opened 1H.....?

I hope partner expects this.

[inquiry]

mike777, on Feb 21 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

...I opened 1H.....?

I hope partner expects this.

This hand is more than a minimum (especially after hearts are raised)... But to pass this hand woudl be very rare event i think.

[mike777]

ok but passing this hand seems ok to me in first or second seat but then I pass 13 hcp often.

[Apollo81]

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 21 2007, 02:50 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

I tend to bid game opposite limit raises when holding a singleton. This hand certainly qualifies as I have a singleton and some reasonable values. At imps I will bid game 100% time if vul. At matchpoints I probably would pass, as I think few will bid the game and it is close.

I think this is backwards from the best general strategy

Which part do you think is backward? don't bid game when holding a singleton and bid game when relatively balanced?

Or was my bid game lighter (as in this case) when vul at imps, but not bid game light when at MP?

MP vs IMP strategy

[inquiry]

Apollo81, on Feb 21 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 21 2007, 02:50 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

I tend to bid game opposite limit raises when holding a singleton. This hand certainly qualifies as I have a singleton and some reasonable values. At imps I will bid game 100% time if vul. At matchpoints I probably would pass, as I think few will bid the game and it is close.

I think this is backwards from the best general strategy

Which part do you think is backward? don't bid game when holding a singleton and bid game when relatively balanced?

Or was my bid game lighter (as in this case) when vul at imps, but not bid game light when at MP?

MP vs IMP strategy

Quote so you believe that the correct strategy is to bid llight games at MP and only sound games at IMPs (and note for the ligth game at imps, I said "especially vul").

Dude, I think you have the strategy backwards not me.

[pbleighton]

"ok but passing this hand seems ok to me in first or second seat but then I pass 13 hcp often."

But then you open flat 11s often

Peter

[Apollo81]

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 21 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 21 2007, 02:50 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

I tend to bid game opposite limit raises when holding a singleton. This hand certainly qualifies as I have a singleton and some reasonable values. At imps I will bid game 100% time if vul. At matchpoints I probably would pass, as I think few will bid the game and it is close.

I think this is backwards from the best general strategy

Which part do you think is backward? don't bid game when holding a singleton and bid game when relatively balanced?

Or was my bid game lighter (as in this case) when vul at imps, but not bid game light when at MP?

MP vs IMP strategy

Quote so you believe that the correct strategy is to bid llight games at MP and only sound games at IMPs (and note for the ligth game at imps, I said "especially vul").

Dude, I think you have the strategy backwards not me.

wow, i can't believe i have to explain this

Everybody knows that the partnership should bid game more aggressively at IMPs than MPs. However, if both opener and responder stretch for their bids, then the partnership will reach a lot of ridiculous no-play games, some of which will be doubled. In practice, a lot of partnerships solve this by having the expectation that one player will be the aggressive bidder, but this can hardly be right in theory.

At MPs, it is just as bad (perhaps worse) to go down at the 3-level or 2NT when you could make a lower level partscore as it is to miss game. At IMPs, it is (much) worse to miss game. Therefore we should take some risks to bid all making games at IMPs...this means invite on more (lighter) hands than we would at MPs and just force game on the heavy invitations. Consequently, we should accept invitations less aggressively at IMPs since partner has already done the aggressive evaluation. A nice bonus of bidding this way is that we get doubled in game less often since we will be accepting fewer invitations (these auctions are the most likely to get doubled). A way to think of a game try at IMPs using this philosophy is the invitation says "partner, I'm bidding this just in case you're at the top of your range." At MPs, an invitation is "partner, I'm bidding this just in case you're at the bottom of your range." Yes, these are different.

[Double !]

IMO, playing the sequence 1M-1N-2Y-3M to show a 3-card limit raise is one really bad method albeit the standard in 2/1 (and in original K-S). It is so difficult for opener to know what cards to value, and it has been known to get the partnership overboard (an unforced error). There needs to be a better way. I know of several BBF members who have been including these types of hands among those that start out with a multi-purpose 2 club response. Perhaps some of you would be kind enough to present your 2C response structures and follow-ups for evaluation and discussion. I believe that a better mousetrap is needed that the current 1N followed by 3M system.

DHL

in addition, what methods do you use to invite game holding a decent 10-11 with 2-card support after 1M-1N-2M (same M)? I have my ideas, but they probably aren't mainstream.

[skjaeran]

I'd never ever even think of raising to game here at any form of scoring.
But that's a consequence of method - my partner would hold Hx in hearst, not 3-card.

In our methods the bidding would go 1♥-2♥, and I'd be able to make a short suit game try.

Vs a 3-card invite without any possiblility to describe my hand any more, I'd raise to game here at IMPs, since my hand is far better than minimum (we open any 11 count). Playing MP I'd raise if the hand came up in a norwegian event, but probably pass playing elsewhere.

[jdonn]

No one has addressed the point that you have the right singleton. This is because if partner has 4 decent spades he will bid 1♠ then 3♥, but if he has 4 lousy spades he will bid 1NT then 3♥, precisely so you can evaluate hands like this correctly. Since it is right on the cusp to me I will accept, but would reject with KJx JTxxx AKxx x since partner is much more likely to have club values.

Noble I have to admit that I think what you said makes no sense at all. Correct me if this is not what you are saying, but this style seems to me like partner is cancelling our aggressive invitation by being less aggressive accepting, so we are not reaching more games, we are simply reaching different ones. In other words there are 2 situations where this approach would reach a different contract than otherwise:

1) Bare minimum opener and maximum invitation, you now reach a game instead of a partscore since responder overbids to game when opener would have rejected an invitation.
2) A little above minimum opener opposite minimum invitation, you now reach a partscore instead of a game since openers passively rejects the invitation when he normally would have accepted.

So they cancel. What am I missing? When you say "if both opener and responder stretch for their bids, then the partnership will reach a lot of ridiculous no-play games" that is precisely the point! The fact that you will bid more games that go down is already incorporated into the odds that make it correct to bid more games at imps.

[helene_t]

I'd pass. Opps' silence suggest partner has spade values.

As for IMPs vs MP: It's funny, you hear some experts saying that you should invite more agreesively at IMPs while others say you should accept lighter at IMPs. First, the non-vulnerable game bonus of 250 versus the non-vulnerable bonus of staying in a makeable 3♥ (220) is not much different at IMPs than at matchpoints. As for inviting, it becomes 190 vs 250 which suggests inviting more aggresively at IMPs.

On the other hand, if the field is in 2♥+1 or 3♥= or 4♥X-2 or whatever, it doesn't matter if we are in 2♥= or 3♥-1. The again, if we're the only ones to make ten tricks it doesn't matter if we bid it or not, except if someone makes +200 by defending.

So I suppose there's not simple answer as it will depend on your assessment of you own partnership vs opps and of the field.

[Fluffy]

Pass to me, don't find enough extras, 4th diamond is not always a winner pposite 3 trumps.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2007, 04:29 AM, said:

Noble I have to admit that I think what you said makes no sense at all. Correct me if this is not what you are saying, but this style seems to me like partner is cancelling our aggressive invitation by being less aggressive accepting, so we are not reaching more games, we are simply reaching different ones. In other words there are 2 situations where this approach would reach a different contract than otherwise:

1) Bare minimum opener and maximum invitation, you now reach a game instead of a partscore since responder overbids to game when opener would have rejected an invitation.
2) A little above minimum opener opposite minimum invitation, you now reach a partscore instead of a game since openers passively rejects the invitation when he normally would have accepted.

So they cancel. What am I missing? When you say "if both opener and responder stretch for their bids, then the partnership will reach a lot of ridiculous no-play games" that is precisely the point! The fact that you will bid more games that go down is already incorporated into the odds that make it correct to bid more games at imps.

Maybe my opinion is easier to understand in reverse.

Since the game bonus is large compared to the cost of going down vs. making a partscore, it seems normal to keep the bidding open if there's any chance at game. Thus we have to invite very aggressively to prevent missing game when opener is at the very top of his range. Clearly these should only be accepted when opener actually is in the top half of his range. A fair number of these games will go down since opener will frequently have a border hand and responder was hoping for nuts.

At MPs, staying out of 2NT or 3x going down when we could make a lower contract is at least as important as bidding all making games, since even if you miss game you can still do well on the board on overtricks. If responder has a hand that will make game opposite nuts but go down in 2NT/3x opposite a dead min, he shouldn't even bother inviting since we simply want to be right on frequency here. These sorts of hands should invite at IMPs. Consequently, opener should accept these invitations on any excuse since responder is being more conservative than normal when inviting.


The given hand is a clear accept of a 4-card limit raise at any form of scoring. My experience with the 3-card LR auction is that the hands tend to play significantly worse. The given hand is IMO exactly on the border, so if we're going to use the form of scoring as the rationale for the accept, we should accept at MPs and reject at IMPs as long as pard is aware of the above philosophy.

I can buy that my evaluation of this hand is wrong, and it is not exactly on the border. The comment about the stiff being in spades is interesting.

[Apollo81]

This was a hand from the D6 open GNT qual. Pard's hand was AJxx A9x xx Q10xx and was treated as a 4-card limit raise for no apparent reason at the other table.