[wyman]

dwar0123, on 2012-March-19, 19:44, said:

Partner would have to something almost exactly like
- qjxxx kqjxx jxx

for 4 spades to go down 1 and 3nt to make, a carefully constructed hand where all the honor positions are one less then partners length in the suits. I would wager the odds of this happening are an order of magnitude less then the number of hands you could construct that 4♠ makes and 3nt doesn't. Maybe 2 orders of magnitude.

That is the only difference worth looking at, as we can ignore the vast majority of hands were neither can make or both can make.

Or you might have 9 tricks, and on the wrong lead, you get all of them in 3N, but you can't ever get a 10th -- even in spades. So I'm saying that opener should really only be bidding 4S with a hand that he hasn't fully described. And this means that responder is allowed to raise on a hand like this.

[dwar0123]

wyman, on 2012-March-19, 19:51, said:

Actually I think this is totally reasonable.

I think that jump rebidding spades shows a suit that will play for roughly 1 loser opposite a stiff. Sometimes partner will raise with a stiff, sometimes even with a void.

I have far less concern in 4S than in 3N with responder's hand, but this is a question of judgment, not of system. I'm happy if a slew of people think I'm wrong though. It probably means I am.

As long as both you and your partner are happy with the agreement, nothing wrong with that. I think its more useful to accurately describe shape trusting my partner to bid 3nt with a void knowing that I will correct if my spade suit can hold up opposite a void.

What would the spade bidder have to have to pull 3nt to 4♠? It seems like an undefined bid in your methods.

[HighLow21]

wyman, on 2012-March-19, 19:37, said:

Because 9 < 10 ?

True, and in most cases your trick count in NT and ♠ will be the same. However if one of the red suits is unstopped or only stopped once, the trick tally in spades might be much higher than in NT.

Just look at AKQJxxx xx x KQx opposite the South hand given. The opponents could easily rattle off 4-5 diamonds in NT to start, plus the heart ace, while there are 11 tricks on top in spades on reasonable major suit breaks. Even if one of the majors is 5-1, the spade game makes. Sure, you can construct South hands where there are exactly 9 tricks in both NT and spades, but at IMPS, clearly 4♠ is more likely to make. (The 10-point score difference in the scenario that there are as many NT tricks as tricks in spades may swing the decision to passing out 3NT.)

Here's my problem with 3NT, though: since most of North's hands worthy of a 3S rebid will have at least 7 HCP in spades, there may well be entry trouble to North's hand to establish and run the spades. Even though partner's strength is likely concentrated in the suit that we are void, isn't it still usually better to play a powerful misfit in a suit? Especially when it could be that EITHER major is a sufficient trump suit opposite little or no support?

For me, 4H > 4S > 3N. If I reverse the red suits, then 4S > 3N > 4D > 4H.

[wyman]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-19, 19:59, said:

Just look at AKQJxxx xx x KQx opposite the South hand given. The opponents could easily rattle off 4-5 diamonds in NT to start, plus the heart ace, while there are 11 tricks on top in spades on reasonable major suit breaks. Even if one of the majors is 5-1, the spade game makes. Sure, you can construct South hands where there are exactly 9 tricks in both NT and spades, but at IMPS, clearly 4♠ is more likely to make. (The 10-point score difference in the scenario that there are as many NT tricks as tricks in spades may swing the decision to passing out 3NT.)

A few points:
(1) that is not a 3S call for me.
(2) I have 5 crappy diamonds, so you're right that opps could run them, but:
...(a) they might not lead them, and
...(b) they may see 9xxxx in dummy, not want to establish the 5th diamond, and shift to a club.

edit: the real point is that this isnt a hand where we need to consider 3N v 4S; we would have bid 4S directly over 1N or autosplintered if we're feeling real saucy (I'm not). So it's surely right, as you suggest, to pull 3N here, since you shouldnt have put yourself in this position in the first place imo.

[dwar0123]

wyman, on 2012-March-19, 20:04, said:

A few points:
(1) that is not a 3S call for me.
(2) I have 5 crappy diamonds, so you're right that opps could run them, but:
...(a) they might not lead them, and
...(b) they may see 9xxxx in dummy, not want to establish the 5th diamond, and shift to a club.

With regards to point b. They are going to see a stiff in dummy and 7 running spade tricks with the kqx of clubs as an entry.

[wyman]

dwar0123, on 2012-March-19, 20:06, said:

With regards to point b. They are going to see a stiff in dummy and 7 running spade tricks with the kqx of clubs as an entry.

heh, good point. I retract my ridiculousness (part B anyway).

[edit: but I run good, so they will block and the HA will be with the short diamonds ]

[HighLow21]

wyman, on 2012-March-19, 20:09, said:

heh, good point. I retract my ridiculousness (part B anyway).

[edit: but I run good, so they will block and the HA will be with the short diamonds ]

And with regards to part A, relying on a misdefense is just bad strategy.

Anyway we agree that 3NT isn't a good call in our opinions. I would guess that 4S and 4H are both about 90% to make and 3NT may be as low as 60%. And the percentage of hands where 3NT makes and 4(major) doesn't is close to zero, IMO.

[dwar0123]

wyman, on 2012-March-19, 20:04, said:

edit: the real point is that this isnt a hand where we need to consider 3N v 4S; we would have bid 4S directly over 1N or autosplintered if we're feeling real saucy (I'm not). So it's surely right, as you suggest, to pull 3N here, since you shouldnt have put yourself in this position in the first place imo.

Well on that we agree, with the suggested hand I would not give my partner the chance to pass 3♠ and would have bid 4 directly over 1nt.

[wyman]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-19, 20:15, said:

And with regards to part A, relying on a misdefense is just bad strategy.

Anyway we agree that 3NT isn't a good call in our opinions. I would guess that 4S and 4H are both about 90% to make and 3NT may be as low as 60%. And the percentage of hands where 3NT makes and 4(major) doesn't is close to zero, IMO.

I'm not relying strategically on misdefense, but it's totally valid to consider it as part of your EV. Assign probabilities to possible events. Like I assign 0% to partner holding AKQJxxx/xx/x/KQx.

I think we disagree on how likely everything is to make. I'm just saying I'd bid 4S and part of the reason is that I very rarely expect partner to pull 3N.

[Statto]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-19, 20:15, said:

And with regards to part A, relying on a misdefense is just bad strategy.

Normally, yes. But putting some eggs in the basket of opps not finding the right opening lead is a reasonable strategy, particularly if you think they are quite likely not to find it. Which is why I voted 3NT

[Codo]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-19, 18:06, said:

What are you going to do over 1♠ with void, KJx, x, Qxxxxxxxx if 3♣ is strong ? pass ? 0418 is probably even worse.

But with such a "strong" hand you would not like to bid 4 in your suit after 3 ♠, would you?
And if you have a suit strong enough to suggest as trump at the four level, you had not rebid 1 NT.
Maybe you have a case with -,QJT9876543,Kxx,x, but these hands are quite rare...

[Cyberyeti]

Codo, on 2012-March-20, 02:29, said:

But with such a "strong" hand you would not like to bid 4 in your suit after 3 ♠, would you?
And if you have a suit strong enough to suggest as trump at the four level, you had not rebid 1 NT.
Maybe you have a case with -,QJT9876543,Kxx,x, but these hands are quite rare...

Slightly depends on the context in which I'm playing a forcing notrump.

Take my original hand void, KJx, x, Qxxxxxxxx

If my choice is 1N or 2♣ FG, that's one thing, if we're playing a forcing notrump in precision so partner's limited that's quite another.

My problem would be that if 1♠-2♣ is a decent hand, 1♠-3♣ is FG, 1♠-4♣ is a splinter, I have to respond 1N or pass, now if I respond 1N if 4♣ is a cue, and 5♣ is exclusion, I'm going to play somewhere really silly opposite say AKxxxxx, A, Axxx, K, I can make 12 tricks in clubs most of the time, I might only make 7 in spades with normal breaks.

If I initially respond 2♣ in my style (2/1 10+), I'll be in game or somewhere stupid opposite any 5350 15 count, lovely.

These hands are not common, but to have hands for which there is absolutely no sensible way of bidding them in system is not my style.

[wyman]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-20, 05:14, said:

Slightly depends on the context in which I'm playing a forcing notrump.

Take my original hand void, KJx, x, Qxxxxxxxx

If my choice is 1N or 2♣ FG, that's one thing, if we're playing a forcing notrump in precision so partner's limited that's quite another.

My problem would be that if 1♠-2♣ is a decent hand, 1♠-3♣ is FG, 1♠-4♣ is a splinter, I have to respond 1N or pass, now if I respond 1N if 4♣ is a cue, and 5♣ is exclusion, I'm going to play somewhere really silly opposite say AKxxxxx, A, Axxx, K, I can make 12 tricks in clubs most of the time, I might only make 7 in spades with normal breaks.

If I initially respond 2♣ in my style (2/1 10+), I'll be in game or somewhere stupid opposite any 5350 15 count, lovely.

These hands are not common, but to have hands for which there is absolutely no sensible way of bidding them in system is not my style.

This is one reason I prefer 1S-3C to be natural and invitational. At least then I have a different lie to tell.

Also where are these hands coming from? AKxxxxx, A, Axxx, K is not a 1S-3S hand. You have 4 losers, 3 aces, an 18 count, and 7 spades. <edited out misunderstanding>

[mike777]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-20, 05:14, said:

Slightly depends on the context in which I'm playing a forcing notrump.

Take my original hand void, KJx, x, Qxxxxxxxx

If my choice is 1N or 2♣ FG, that's one thing, if we're playing a forcing notrump in precision so partner's limited that's quite another.

My problem would be that if 1♠-2♣ is a decent hand, 1♠-3♣ is FG, 1♠-4♣ is a splinter, I have to respond 1N or pass, now if I respond 1N if 4♣ is a cue, and 5♣ is exclusion, I'm going to play somewhere really silly opposite say AKxxxxx, A, Axxx, K, I can make 12 tricks in clubs most of the time, I might only make 7 in spades with normal breaks.

If I initially respond 2♣ in my style (2/1 10+), I'll be in game or somewhere stupid opposite any 5350 15 count, lovely.

These hands are not common, but to have hands for which there is absolutely no sensible way of bidding them in system is not my style.

pass

you must live with some system holes, you cant play a system with no holes.


I dont have a way to show a weakish hand with long minor, per your example, so I start with pass.
Note I could show this hand if rho had overcalled.
The good news is pard would have started with a nt type bid with 14+ and bal even with 5s.
Maybe lho will balance if not at least we are at the one level and no one doubled.
my other option is to start with 1nt and rebid 3c which shows a good inv hand and long clubs. With 9clubs I might do this.
If partner is opening 1s with a 4 loser hand and lots of controls, we are in trouble.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2012-March-20, 06:08, said:

pass

I dont have a way to show a weakish hand with long minor, per your example, so I start with pass.
Note I could show this hand if rho had overcalled.
The good news is pard would have started with a nt type bid with 14+ and bal even with 5s.
Maybe lho will balance if not at least we are at the one level and no one doubled.

Explain to team mates why you've gone off in 1♠ when partner has Axxxx, Axx, Axxx, A and they've conceded 6♣.


Wyman:

Quote

Also where are these hands coming from? AKxxxxx, A, Axxx, K is not a 1S-3S hand. You have 4 losers, 3 aces, an 18 count, and 7 spades. But even still -- "might only make 7 in spades"? The only lead that sucks is a club (which they have to luck into, since they are missing the top 2 honors but holding KQJ10 of diamonds between them), otherwise you can draw 2, unblock, overtake the club, and pitch diamonds on hearts (assuming a 'normal' 4-3 split). But even if the lead is a club -- you will make on 4-2 spades and 2-2 diamonds or 3-3 spades and 3-1 diamonds.

I don't know how you were going to overtake the K♣ with the Q, you don't have the ace and have no possible entry to dummy, 4-2 trumps is 2 spades, 3 diamonds and a club to lose opposite void, KJx, x, Qxxxxxxxx.

[wyman]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-20, 06:19, said:

Wyman:
I don't know how you were going to overtake the K♣ with the Q, you don't have the ace and have no possible entry to dummy, 4-2 trumps is 2 spades, 3 diamonds and a club to lose opposite void, KJx, x, Qxxxxxxxx.

Sorry, will edit above. Was putting your AKxxxxx/A/Kxxx/K opp the hand in OP. I understand now what you're saying. But I think you're aiming for an awfully narrow range. I mean if you want to bid 5C with your hand with 9 clubs, go for it, and partner with a super control rich hand can raise, but I think you don't need to be able to bid 4C in an effort to get to exactly 4C, 5C, and 6C when each is the right landing spot. Systems just aren't designed to handle freak 9-baggers.

And I still maintain that this hand is not a 3S rebid.

[Cyberyeti]

wyman, on 2012-March-20, 06:25, said:

Sorry, will edit above. Was putting your AKxxxxx/A/Kxxx/K opp the hand in OP. I understand now what you're saying. But I think you're aiming for an awfully narrow range. I mean if you want to bid 5C with your hand with 9 clubs, go for it, and partner with a super control rich hand can raise, but I think you don't need to be able to bid 4C in an effort to get to exactly 4C, 5C, and 6C when each is the right landing spot. Systems just aren't designed to handle freak 9-baggers.

And I still maintain that this hand is not a 3S rebid.

My point was that I might want to use 5♣ as exclusion over 1♠-1N-3♠ if my forcing notrump includes various spade raises as it does in some versions. I'd rather be able to bid 4♣ then 5♣ to show this type of hand.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2012-March-20, 06:08, said:

you must live with some system holes, you cant play a system with no holes.

Depends what you mean by "holes". Every system has hands which it is not good at handling, granted. But not every system has hands for which there is no sensible way of bidding them.

[wyman]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-20, 07:26, said:

My point was that I might want to use 5♣ as exclusion over 1♠-1N-3♠ if my forcing notrump includes various spade raises as it does in some versions. I'd rather be able to bid 4♣ then 5♣ to show this type of hand.

I guess. I just think it's unlikely that we couldn't GF, but now we think we have 5-level safety. Sure I agree with you that there are hands like this [they are not that hard to construct, even], I just think it's a small set, and there are way more where we just want to say "hey, pard, I have a really good raise to 4S. Interested?"

[phil_20686]

wyman, on 2012-March-19, 19:51, said:

I think that jump rebidding spades shows a suit that will play for roughly 1 loser opposite a stiff. Sometimes partner will raise with a stiff, sometimes even with a void.

This is much to high a margin for the 3 spades rebid. A suit like AQ98xx is more than sufficient for a 3S call here. If partner has a doubleton where else would you want to play? And yet without the ability to take a finesse you could be conceding four spade tricks opposit a void, and losing control to boot.

If you have no three card raises in your forcing NT, there is an argument that partner should always show doubleton support after a 2N rebid, but there are now lots of things to consider. You might use the 2N rebid as a GF (as I do), you might choose to bid a 3 (or 2) card minor then raise spades after false preference if your spade suit is very poor.

But never the less, the vase majority of spade suits on which partner will bid 3S will play terribly opposite a void. even AQT-seventh concedes two spade tricks, and here you have a hand which may just have tricks outside of spades. This is not like a hand where you will need the spades to come in anyway in NT, with two five card suits you could easily have buckets of side suit tricks.