[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-12, 10:17, said:

Yep. Hence my careful answer of Mr. Ace' question.

It wasn't obvious you intended the rewording to "do you" to mean you personally, rather than the general sense.

[jogs]

barmar, on 2013-April-12, 09:37, said:

That's a matter of partnership agreement. If you play 1-2-3-stop, opener normally bids 3 whenever he has an extra trump. But if you play that this is invitational, you can't.

I'm kinda convinced 1-2-3-stop is a poor strategy. Why go the the 3 level unforced?
6322. May not want to go to the 3 level at all.
3M -1. Hate this result when many in the field are in 2M making.

[Cyberyeti]

jogs, on 2013-April-12, 17:16, said:

I'm kinda convinced 1-2-3-stop is a poor strategy. Why go the the 3 level unforced?
6322. May not want to go to the 3 level at all.
3M -1. Hate this result when many in the field are in 2M making.

The reason to go to the 3 level is that if you don't, the auction goes 1M-P-2M-P-P-X-P-3m- and then either P-P-P making or 3♠-P-P-X

[32519]

In an uncontested auction when it is unclear which is the stronger/weaker hand, don't you hand over captaincy of the auction by limiting your own hand with e.g. Serious / Non-Serious 3NT? By this time a fair amount of information has been exchanged between the two hands. By limiting your hand now, partner needs the extras to make any sort of slam try.

[MrAce]

Even if we all agree that 1-2-3 ♥ is a stop, my question was "should we always do it, regardless of our spade holdings and or hcps ?" It was not "should we play 1-2-3 stop or not."

Imo, if we are always bidding 3 with 6th trump, we are bidding just like GIB. There are other factors that involves in our decision except than 6th ♥. For example if we believe that 2 level is our safest spot and that they are unlikely to compete with 2♠ due to our spade holdings, we may chose to sit.

If they still bid 2♠ we can always bid 3 with 6 card or pd can with 4 card, if we decide to do so. It is very rare opponents who never bid untill 2♠ balance to bid 3♠ and that to be a good spot for them. If they bid 3minor, again we reserve our right to bid 3♥. In return we will not have to play 3♥ , where opps would sell us at 2 level. They can sell it to us for various reasons. For example hearts are 3-1 and the guy with singleton may think his pd has 4 of them, or they may not have suitable bid in fear of hearing a suit that they are not comfy with if they dbl etc etc. Also most people do not play "prebalance" bids. I mean the hand that is suitable to balance is sitting behind 2♥ bidder, most people hesitate to get in, into a live auction with hands that they would definetely balance if they were sitting behind 1♥ opener.

I think Jogs agree with me.

[jogs]

Essentially my view is don't bid 3 of the major until they force us.
On some hands with 6 trumps I won't bid 3 of the major after they
force us.
♠QJx ♥Q87542 ♦KJ ♣KJ
This hand rates to be unlucky.

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-13, 02:05, said:

The reason to go to the 3 level is that if you don't, the auction goes 1M-P-2M-P-P-X-P-3m- and then either P-P-P ...

This wont happen very often. With most 6 card suits we are willing
to compete with 3M when they force us.

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-13, 02:05, said:

The reason to go to the 3 level is that if you don't, the auction goes 1M-P-2M-P-P-X-P-3m- and ........ or 3♠-P-P-X

That's a poor strategy on their part. One opponent stretches to
compete and the another opponent makes a close double. He should
be pleased his partner pushed us one level higher.

[32519]

I remain of the opinion that the weaker hand should rarely (if ever) take captaincy of the auction. When one partner has shown extras e.g. a reverse bid or a jump bid, the weaker hand can then –
1. With a minimum: Attempt to sign-off in the agreed trump suit, whether that be in a part score or game.
2. With intermediate strength: Encourage a slam try via a cue-bid e.g. 4♦ showing 1st or 2nd round ♦ control when a major suit has been agreed as trumps. The stronger hand is best placed to determine if the cue-bid is of any value to the combined partnership assets.
a. Where the stronger hand is void in ♦ (in this example), the control doesn’t help the combined assets in any way. So a game signoff will be most likely.
b. Similarly, by skipping ♣ (in this example), the weaker hand has denied any ♣ controls. Where the stronger hand also no ♣ controls, a game signoff will take place.
In both a and b, the stronger hand is best placed to decide where the auction is headed. No overbidding and all your toys are still in the cot.

[gwnn]

barmar, on 2013-April-12, 10:58, said:

It wasn't obvious you intended the rewording to "do you" to mean you personally, rather than the general sense.

For future reference, he always does.

[WellSpyder]

32519, on 2013-April-14, 00:46, said:

I remain of the opinion that the weaker hand should rarely (if ever) take captaincy of the auction.

LOL. A classic of the "ask a question then ignore the answers when they don't agree with what you thought yourself" variety.

[Zelandakh]

Here is a simple counter-example. Partner opens 2NT (20-21). I hold 19hcp and am therefore the weaker hand. Are you really saying I should make a slam try and respect partner's sign off? It is possible to design a system such that a strong opener retains control; some strong club systems work this way. However, in a natural system it is always allowable for an unlimited hand to drive to slam if no better option is available. Your example is one where the weaker hand (which incidentally may not be weaker) can conveniently show extras and pass control back. I addressed this situation in my earlier post. To take a particular situation and extrapolate from that to the general case is a poor argument.

[ArtK78]

Yesterday, in a sectional Swiss Teams, I held this hand:

---

I held the weaker hand. But I was the only one who could determine that the assets of the partnership warranted a slam bid. I knew more about my partner's hand than he knew about mine.

This happens frequently in Standard bidding. Had we been playing a strong club system, my partner would have opened 1♣ and I would have made a positive response showing a club suit. He would then have been in control.

[hrothgar]

Here is another obvious counter example.

Many relay systems optimize captaincy decisions around a "balanced hand asks" principal rather than "weak hand asks".

[PhilKing]

It's simply the wrong question, so the thread is an exercise in futility. Bidding captaincy has nothing to do with whether one has the stronger or weaker hand.

[gwnn]

To be fair, threads on bidding captaincy generally end up being exercises in futility. It is an emotional subject (in general, people like to feel like captain (cf. La Bamba: "Yo no soy marinero!")).

[32519]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-15, 05:56, said:

Yesterday, in a sectional Swiss Teams, I held this hand:

---

I held the weaker hand. But I was the only one who could determine that the assets of the partnership warranted a slam bid. I knew more about my partner's hand than he knew about mine.

This happens frequently in Standard bidding. Had we been playing a strong club system, my partner would have opened 1♣ and I would have made a positive response showing a club suit. He would then have been in control.

So tell us the full story. Assuming that 4♣ was Minorwood for ♣ and that 4♠ showed 2 keycards without the trump queen, you are in serious jeopardy of not making your contract.

[ArtK78]

32519, on 2013-April-15, 14:02, said:

So tell us the full story. Assuming that 4♣ was Minorwood for ♣ and that 4♠ showed 2 keycards without the trump queen, you are in serious jeopardy of not making your contract.

This is a standard auction. 3♣ was a game forcing jump shift, but it might be manufactured if opener had a one-suited hand. 4♣ was natural. 4♠ is a cue-bid with clubs as trump (opener would have bid 4♥ with a one-suited hand). I decided that this was enough for slam in most cases. There could be no grand - opener denied the ♦A by bypassing 4♦. He could not bid 4♥ as that would have shown a one-suited hand. So he is cooperating in a slam try by cue bidding the ♠A.

The slam was cold, but my partner chose a reasonable line of play to dispose of his possible second diamond loser after the club opening lead. His hand was AQ AKxxx xx KQxx. He won the opening lead in dummy, played ♥A and ruffed a heart, crossed in spades, ruffed a heart, crossed in spades and ruffed a heart high (RHO showing out and pitching a spade). He then cashed the ♠K to discard a diamond. Unfortunately, the spades were 6-2 with LHO ruffing in behind my partner, and the ♦A was cashed (and was onside).

If his ♠Q were the ♦Q, this would have been easy.

I don't know the whole hand (for example, how the clubs broke), so I don't know if partner gave it the best play. Still, it wasn't terrible.

[MrAce]

32519, on 2013-April-14, 00:46, said:

I remain of the opinion that the weaker hand should rarely (if ever) take captaincy of the auction. ......

PhilKing, on 2013-April-15, 08:23, said:

....... Bidding captaincy has nothing to do with whether one has the stronger or weaker hand.

It is almost impossible to convince a person, who is obviously fascinated and knows more conventions than you or any player on earth, that he has colossal holes about the basics of bidding which needs to be filled. Captaincy of an auction is taught at the very beginning of bidding lessons. And personally i would not even dare to teach stayman or jacoby transfer to a person if i knew they haven't had the grasp of "captaincy" in bidding.

After he said what he said, i am not even sure if he and rest of us mean same thing when use the word "captaincy"

It would make much more sense to me if he said " Weaker player in skills should rarely (if ever) take the captaincy of the auction"

[mike777]

fwiw I do think having weaker hand as captain will rarely be winning not 100% but close.

Keep in mind if you make a grand try we can just jump to 7 as weaker hand with tricks.

with all of that said you can make some clear examples where weaker hand should take over captaincy but I only note they are rare.


The point being dont make a system based on the weak hand being captain.

[ArtK78]

mike777, on 2013-April-15, 21:12, said:

fwiw I do think having weaker hand as captain will rarely be winning not 100% but close.

Keep in mind if you make a grand try we can just jump to 7 as weaker hand with tricks.

with all of that said you can make some clear examples where weaker hand should take over captaincy but I only note they are rare.


The point being dont make a system based on the weak hand being captain.

As MrAce alluded to, there are many situations in which the weaker hand is the captain.

In almost all strong NT auctions, the responder is the captain, and responder is usually the weaker hand.

[mike777]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-15, 21:28, said:

As MrAce alluded to, there are many situations in which the weaker hand is the captain.

In almost all strong NT auctions, the responder is the captain, and responder is usually the weaker hand.

Idont think there are many situations.....but that makes a discussion.


again prefer to make a system based on the stronger hand being captain...but of course that hand is allowed to give up captaincy.

one excellent example is where the hand is limited and explained.

the stronger hand gives up captaincy......this is an important point


the stronger hand is captain until they give being captain

so we can say the stronger hand is captain until they give up and then the weaker hand is.


not 100% but in general yes...