[straube]

Ok, we lost two swings by not bidding vulnerable games.

Hand 1

xxx AQJxx Axx QJ opposite AJxx Txx KQTx xx.
Our bidding went 1H-2H, P. we play constructive raises.

Hand 2

Ax x AKQTx AJxxx opposite xxxx Axxx 9xx Tx
Our bidding went 1C (16+)-1H (4-7 any shape), 2S(minor suit stay man)-3D (fit)-4D (invitational), P

So do we want to be in these games? If so, how should the bidding have gone?

[gnasher]

I don't see why you need to ask us about the first one. It needs the heart right, trumps breaking, and either the diamonds coming in or both spades onside, so it's clearly not good enough,

The second one is a bit better. It will make most of the time that clubs are 3-3. If diamonds are 4-2, it probably needs both clubs onside, and DJ not in the same hand as the doubleton club (or singleton DJ). There are handling charges, and its off by force if trumps are 4-0 offside. That's roughly (36 + 48 / 8) * 0.95, or around 40%

As for how the bidding should go, it depends on what your opener has shown. If he's shown a near-game force with 6-5 in the minors, he's obviously done enough. Responder might have bid game, because everything he has looks like it might be useful, including ♣10 and ♦9. On the other hand he is minimum, he has has only three diamonds, and he doesn't know how valuable his minor-suit spots are. If responder's diamonds were Jxx it would be clear to accept.

[rhm]

straube, on 2012-April-25, 01:31, said:

Ok, we lost two swings by not bidding vulnerable games.

Hand 1

xxx AQJxx Axx QJ opposite AJxx Txx KQTx xx.
Our bidding went 1H-2H, P. we play constructive raises.

Hand 2

Ax x AKQTxx AJxxx opposite xxxx Axxx 9xx Tx
Our bidding went 1C (16+)-1H (4-7 any shape), 2S(minor suit stay man)-3D (fit)-4D (invitational), P

So do we want to be in these games? If so, how should the bidding have gone?

Hand 1:

That depends on what "constructive" really means and what the upper limit for a constructive raise is.
If it encompasses a 3 card limit raise I fault nobody, because I can not bring myself to move with opener's hand, but you probably open lighter than I do.
If a 3 card limit raise is too strong for a "constructive" raise, I blame responder.

Hand 2:

Assuming opener has only 5 diamond cards:
On the marked trump lead is 5♦ such a great contract? I would not care missing this game.
If responder had ♥KQxx instead of ♥Axxx, 5♦ would be poor.
Nevertheless, I do not like the 4♦ bid, because it gives responder little information to judge his values in the majors.
If available I would bid 3♠ over 3♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

The first one I think I know what a constructive raise is and responder clearly is too strong for it. The second one I have no idea what 2♠ 'minor suit stayman' means opposite a weakish hand with an undefined shape.

[straube]

gwnn, on 2012-April-25, 02:48, said:

The first one I think I know what a constructive raise is and responder clearly is too strong for it. The second one I have no idea what 2♠ 'minor suit stayman' means opposite a weakish hand with an undefined shape.

We use that bid when we are shy of GF strength (which takes a good 20+) and have either 5/5 in the minors or an invitational single suited diamond hand. Responder's bid showed a diamond fit (3+). So 4D was admittedly not a descriptive but, but it was an invitational bid of course.

[ArtK78]

I have no problem with the bidding on the first hand although responder is probably too good for a constructive single raise, however you define it. In any event, opener has a 100% clear pass of 2♥. I would pass a limit raise with that opening hand.

The second hand is different. I don't like the 4♦ call. 3♠ is a better call. Responder may try 3NT with the ♥A. In any event, even if you don't get to 3NT, the 3♠ call is more likely to get you to 5♦.

[CSGibson]

first one is a clear 3 card limit raise playing standard methods (which I know you do not, and which may influence your choices greatly). Anyway, the honors are supporting each other, and you even have a ruffing value, not the time to get conservative.

2nd one, I'm not sure about your methods. Does opener know that you have fewer clubs than diamonds, or could you be 3-3? Was there a way for opener to bid out his shape, or could he still have the single-suited diamond hand? It's hard to fault either one without knowing what you have already shown and denied. After all, if your values had been Qxx Kxx Jxxx xxx then would it have been bid any differently?

[straube]

CSGibson, on 2012-April-26, 01:30, said:

first one is a clear 3 card limit raise playing standard methods (which I know you do not, and which may influence your choices greatly). Anyway, the honors are supporting each other, and you even have a ruffing value, not the time to get conservative.

2nd one, I'm not sure about your methods. Does opener know that you have fewer clubs than diamonds, or could you be 3-3? Was there a way for opener to bid out his shape, or could he still have the single-suited diamond hand? It's hard to fault either one without knowing what you have already shown and denied. After all, if your values had been Qxx Kxx Jxxx xxx then would it have been bid any differently?

Regarding the 1st one, we open balanced 11 cts or may open lighter unbalanced. I agreed with partner's constructive raise, though I consider it a max; open to other views here.

2nd one, I would agree diamonds with 3/3 since it helps partner with either 5/5 or 6D (we've hence changed our notes so that 3m by responder is forward-going and 2N is asking and usually bad). I think partner's bid of 4D was unhelpful because it didn't clarify whether he also had clubs, but it was invitational certainly. I'm not sure what I would have done with Qxx Kxx Jxxx xxx at the time...probably just 3D. I'm more likely to bid just 3D with our update...encouraging; if partner has the big diamond (going through 2S is stronger than 3D after the 1H response) he'll bid again. If he has 5/5 minors, my hand has the wrong honors.

[CSGibson]

straube, on 2012-April-26, 09:48, said:

Regarding the 1st one, we open balanced 11 cts or may open lighter unbalanced. I agreed with partner's constructive raise, though I consider it a max; open to other views here.

2nd one, I would agree diamonds with 3/3 since it helps partner with either 5/5 or 6D (we've hence changed our notes so that 3m by responder is forward-going and 2N is asking and usually bad). I think partner's bid of 4D was unhelpful because it didn't clarify whether he also had clubs, but it was invitational certainly. I'm not sure what I would have done with Qxx Kxx Jxxx xxx at the time...probably just 3D. I'm more likely to bid just 3D with our update...encouraging; if partner has the big diamond (going through 2S is stronger than 3D after the 1H response) he'll bid again. If he has 5/5 minors, my hand has the wrong honors.

The key to responder properly evaluating his hand (min without context, but everything, including the doubleton, working in context of the actual hand) is opener clarifying his hand type. If opener can show 5-5 invitational, then because he didn't, its his fault - responder cannot properly evaluate his likely 2 cover cards/important T of clubs. Opener has a telling hand, not an asking hand, and he refused to tell.

[mikeh]

I upvoted andy's response, so don't really have much to add.

I do think that some posters fall into the resulting school of thought....they miss a bad game that makes due to a lucky layout and they lose imps, therefore assume that something went wrong. Thinking that way is very bad for one's bidding judgment. This first hand ought not to have been posted, but I can see that if OP has a stubborn partner, then being able to point to the unanimous or near-unanimous view of posters here may have a benefit.

FWIW, I would see the responding hand as just a tad too rich for a constructive raise. Make if 4333, then I'd accept it as a absolute top of range hand. Part of the problem is that the hcp are so good...an A and a K, with the K well supported...this hand is clearly worth 11 hcp or more, if you like counting points, which I don't.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2012-April-26, 11:29, said:

I upvoted andy's response, so don't really have much to add.

I do think that some posters fall into the resulting school of thought....they miss a bad game that makes due to a lucky layout and they lose imps, therefore assume that something went wrong. Thinking that way is very bad for one's bidding judgment. This first hand ought not to have been posted, but I can see that if OP has a stubborn partner, then being able to point to the unanimous or near-unanimous view of posters here may have a benefit.

I am not sure why you are saying that. I think we all agree that you don't want to be in game, so the OP did fine by reaching 2♥; but we also agree that a constructive 2♥ raise is an underbid with responder's hand. (In fact, the only reason game is so bad are the wasted ♣QJ opposite ♣xx.) Isn't that sort of "anti-resulting" (before looking at opponents' hands, at least)?

[MrAce]

cherdano, on 2012-April-26, 11:43, said:

I am not sure why you are saying that. I think we all agree that you don't want to be in game, so the OP did fine by reaching 2♥; but we also agree that a constructive 2♥ raise is an underbid with responder's hand. (In fact, the only reason game is so bad are the wasted ♣QJ opposite ♣xx.) Isn't that sort of "anti-resulting" (before looking at opponents' hands, at least)?

This is like the best catch i had seen so far in my BBF membership. I am surprised that 2 of my most favourite posters, as well as everyone else's, could not see that they might be the ones who is actually resulting, when they thought other way around, imo.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2012-April-26, 11:43, said:

I am not sure why you are saying that. I think we all agree that you don't want to be in game, so the OP did fine by reaching 2♥; but we also agree that a constructive 2♥ raise is an underbid with responder's hand. (In fact, the only reason game is so bad are the wasted ♣QJ opposite ♣xx.) Isn't that sort of "anti-resulting" (before looking at opponents' hands, at least)?

I see your point, and it is valid.

However, would it be resulting to suggest that had East valued his hand as a 3 card limit raise, West could logically reject game: while he has 14 hcp, the LTC is abysmal....a LTC of 7 is regarded as a minimum 1M opening and this has a LTC of 8?

[straube]

mikeh, on 2012-April-26, 22:05, said:

I see your point, and it is valid.

However, would it be resulting to suggest that had East valued his hand as a 3 card limit raise, West could logically reject game: while he has 14 hcp, the LTC is abysmal....a LTC of 7 is regarded as a minimum 1M opening and this has a LTC of 8?

Our NT is 14-16. Looking at that hand with QJ tight, 5 hearts and 3 spades, I thought it better to open 1H. The knr is 13.3 so I don't think I'm far off. Because we open 1H with 11-13 balanced or lighter unbalanced, partner's constructive raise is perhaps a point higher than for standard...so we think of it as maybe a very good 8 to a bad 11.

I was satisfied with how we bid it. I could arguably bid 1N and partner could arguably make a limit raise. After partner gives a constructive raise, no way am I inviting with that. I'm going to be consistent with my prior evaluation.

Unlucky for us that everything was positioned well. Partner's point was that we should try somewhat to match the bidding at the other table. He argued that in a short match, the short of variation we'd create could easily lead to a loss against a team we were hopeful of beating. I argued that we really couldn't think this way. We're playing a different system with different NT ranges, etc.

[MrAce]

straube, on 2012-April-26, 23:31, said:

Our NT is 14-16. Looking at that hand with QJ tight, 5 hearts and 3 spades, I thought it better to open 1H. The knr is 13.3 so I don't think I'm far off. Because we open 1H with 11-13 balanced or lighter unbalanced, partner's constructive raise is perhaps a point higher than for standard...so we think of it as maybe a very good 8 to a bad 11.

I was satisfied with how we bid it. I could arguably bid 1N and partner could arguably make a limit raise. After partner gives a constructive raise, no way am I inviting with that. I'm going to be consistent with my prior evaluation.

Unlucky for us that everything was positioned well. Partner's point was that we should try somewhat to match the bidding at the other table. He argued that in a short match, the short of variation we'd create could easily lead to a loss against a team we were hopeful of beating. I argued that we really couldn't think this way. We're playing a different system with different NT ranges, etc.

I think everyone here agrees that it was a good thing not to reach game with the cards you both held. But don't let this fool you, because it is extremely poor judgement to bid 2♥ with a limit raise hand imo. And opening 11-13 has nothing to do with it, i dont even understand what you mean by this 11-13 balanced or lighter unbalanced. Did you mean you dont open 1♥ with 19 hcp ? Are you playing strong ♣ ? There are a lot of hands where opener will misjudge when responder misdescribes his hand. It is not only about missing a game here. It could be slam or even a grandslam that was missed due to a wrong start.

Is his 10 hcp worth to make a limit raise ? He has 10 hcp, all prime cards, all of them are in his long suits and supporting each other, not a single wasted hcp, two tens, and a doubleton next to 3 card trump. If this is not a 3 card limit raise, i don't know what is.

[CSGibson]

MrAce, on 2012-April-27, 00:00, said:

Are you playing strong ♣ ?

they are playing a strong club, yes.

[nigel_k]

I think a constructive raise is ok if partner would open routinely with 11 HCP and 5332 shape. But it is still close. If opener had something like Qxx AQJxx Axx xx then game is well above 50% but still far from cold. Sometimes that happens when you have no wasted cards and open a wider range of hands than most people. If opener is any better than that they need to move over a constructive raise and are getting close to a 1NT opening anyway.

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2012-April-26, 21:48, said:

This is like the best catch i had seen so far in my BBF membership. I am surprised that 2 of my most favourite posters, as well as everyone else's, could not see that they might be the ones who is actually resulting, when they thought other way around, imo.

Are you talking about me? I merely answered the question in the original post, which was "So do we want to be in these games? If so, how should the bidding have gone?"

On the first deal, the answer to the first part of that is "No". The "If so" meant he didn't want an answer to the second part, so I didn't offer one.

For some reason, nearly everyone else decided to ignore the first 11 words and just address the question "How should the bidding have gone?". That is, of course, their choice, but I don't see why I should be criticised for answering the question that was actually asked.

[gwnn]

I am surprised how badly my favourite poster MrAce can misread one of my favourite posters, gnasher.

[MrAce]

gwnn, on 2012-April-27, 02:53, said:

I am surprised how badly my favourite poster MrAce can misread one of my favourite posters, gnasher.

Actually i didn't (at least i hope i didnt). I am rereading his post again and i still cant see anything he mentioned about the bidding of first hand, thats also what OP asked. He even expressed his surprise that this question was asked. If andy believes the bidding was made as it was supposed to be than i understand, but if he is saying there is nothing to be talk about since where we end up is a good spot, than isn't this a sort of resulting (even if in the actual deal it looks like antiresulting) ?

In the original post, there was only 1 thing that attracted my attention and it was the choice between limit raise or a constructive raise in hand 1. I really dont care whether we bid game or slam or stay in part score after that, perhaps i was dissapointed not to be able to hear the comments of my fav 2 posters, and that they both totally ignored that part just because the game was bad. Did not mean to accuse them of anything, although it may have sounded like that.

gnasher, on 2012-April-27, 01:38, said:

Are you talking about me?

Actually it was to you and MikeH Although you didnt call others "resulters" i was mainly disapointed that you and MikeH totally ignored the part which i wanted to hear most from you guys, just because where they ended was a good spot.