[AL78]

Thanks for the responses. I posted it wondering if anyone would have bid NT with my hand based on protecting the club tenace from the opening lead. I did consider bidding 3NT despite the spade fit for that reason and because I am a better card player, but the purpose of playing with this partner is to give her a game with a competant intermediate. One of her monthly partners is rather poor, and when I look at her online scorecard I can see many of the bad scores are due to her partner either butchering the bidding or card play, so my aim is to fuel her enthusiasm and help her improve. To do this I am not going to bid differently to how I bid with an experienced partner (except where she will likely not understand a bid), so I am not going to try hogging the hand in an attempt to declare on the basis I can play the cards better. Despite me only declaring three out of 24 boards, we finished 4th out of 8 with a little over 54% which I pointed out was a good result in a mixed field and with the opponents getting most of the hands.

I have recommended she has a go at the BridgeMaster hands starting at beginner level.

[Gilithin]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-September-16, 00:15, said:

I think a few pairs agree to shade 2♠ a bit in this sort of sequence

It's not so much shading as simply not knowing how to bid in most cases. If you have ever played in the BBO Acol Club you will know that the level of bidding, particularly competitive bidding, there is extremely low. The majority will bid 2♠ in this sort of sequence with any hand of 6+ HCP and 5+♠. A significant number will do it with 4+♠. So what "a few pairs agree to" do here is not particularly relevant. What is very relevant in a choice between 3NT and 4M is how much combined strength we have. Even if it was not the actual agreement at the table, the OP could have said that the system was Strong 2s and that 2♠ was a NFB to allow for a real discussion on the merits of this hand.

[TylerE]

Douglas43, on 2021-September-16, 02:02, said:

I agree with TMorris. It's worth looking again at partner's initial pass as dealer. You are playing Acol with three weak two's so that is a pretty routine non-vul weak 2♠. Now the auction is an easy 2♠- 4♠. I think the later 2♠ was an attempt to compensate. So I would mainly focus on what constitutes an acceptable weak two.

In this situation you "know" that partner has not got an opening bid. So they are limited to 11 hcp and don't have six spades. With an experienced partner I'd bid 3♣. With a beginner I'd hog with 3NT if trying to win matchpoints or bid 4♠ if wanting to give them practice.

The key lesson here is that it's better to overbid EARLY (not that this is an overbid).

Most sequences have ways to slow things down later... catching up is nearly impossible.

[Gilithin]

TylerE, on 2021-September-16, 17:36, said:

Most sequences have ways to slow things down later... catching up is nearly impossible.

I actually disagree with this. It is generally easy to catch up once a fit is found but if you game force early on the basis that you expect there to be a fit and find out the hand is actually a misfit, it's going to be very difficult to talk partner out of bidding the game you promised.

[TylerE]

If you just open a preempt like sane person you don't find yourself making a GF bid on an 8 count.

[Gilithin]

TylerE, on 2021-September-16, 18:55, said:

If you just open a preempt like sane person you don't find yourself making a GF bid on an 8 count.

Preemption is a different matter. There, yes, it usually pays to bid as high as you dare early, except in specific cases - walking the dog or showing a distributional 2-suiter. But your statement did not make that limitation and I fear is potentially dangerous for lurkers learning the game if taken to heart in a more general sense.

[AL78]

TylerE, on 2021-September-16, 18:55, said:

If you just open a preempt like sane person you don't find yourself making a GF bid on an 8 count.

In Acol a 2/1 bid, whether disturbed or not, is forcing for one round, not game forcing.

[DavidKok]

There might be some amount of talking past one another here. In general 'Quick in, quick out' is a useful approach to bidding. With close decisions, be aggressive early in the bidding so you may comfortably pass later. The key argument is that whatever action you are considering now is likely to get more risky when you have to undertake action at a higher level, possibly with the opponents exchanging valuable information. By contrast, bidding typically gives partner more information about your hand than passing. This may help them make a crucial decision in the bidding later.
Your point about presumed fit GF auctions is fair but missing the point - this is supposed to be a calculated (systemic) risk, and not at all related to 'catching up' with 2♠ on the auction shown. "it's going to be very difficult to talk partner out of bidding the game you promised" is backwards - after a GF bid you are going to game, and sometimes you fail to make it. Dropping partner in a partscore should be reserved for exceptional circumstances (if they have limited their hand really well, for example).

I think East's system bid is a double of 2♣, intending to pull 2♥ to 2♠. If available, opening some weak two in spades would be more descriptive.

In general preempting 'as high as you dare' is somewhat outdated, more the sort of thing that applies to third hand not vulnerable. The general goal is to bid to the level where the opponents have a maximally difficult decision - which may well be 3♠ instead of 4♠ despite holding an 8-bagger. At matchpoints this is even more important than at IMPs.

[Gilithin]

DavidKok, on 2021-September-17, 02:42, said:

There might be some amount of talking past one another here.

You might be right here. The point I was making was to differentiate between constructive and non-constructive sequences. Fast in fast out refers to non-constructive sequences and is certainly good advice for those - generally reach the level you want to bid to as quickly as possible. But I do not think it is good advice for constructive sequences. A good overall philosophy for those is to go slowly until you know what needs to be done (bid contract, invite, RKCB, etc) and then to bid that. The reason I gave the game force as an example of that is because, in what I might loosely describe as BBF Standard, the most common time that this comes up by far is in deciding between a GF 2 over 1 response and a Forcing 1NT. I think it is right for players to evaluate such decisions on their merits and not to feel they need to make the 2/1 call in order to "overbid EARLY". The same thinking applies to most* other constructive sequences.


* specific counter-examples quite possible but not appreciated.

[DavidKok]

I think you are mixing two problems here. "Quick in, quick out" applies but is not limited to jumping the auction with weak hands. What you are referring to is called the principle of fast arrival, which is something else entirely.
Everything I wrote above is advice specifically for having a constructive auction despite interference, and even applies in certain situations where the opponents are silent. If your hand falls on the dividing line between a simple raise and an invitational raise, or between an invitational response and a GF response, or between a preempt and a pass, I advocate leaning towards making the more aggressive bid. This may well backfire, but it is the lesser of two risks.

[Gilithin]

DavidKok, on 2021-September-17, 07:21, said:

I think you are mixing two problems here.

I am not misunderstanding anything David. I am responding to the original comment that said:

TylerE, on 2021-September-16, 17:36, said:

The key lesson here is that it's better to overbid EARLY (not that this is an overbid).

Most sequences have ways to slow things down later... catching up is nearly impossible.

My point is that that is generally not true for constructive auctions and liberally applying it is poor bridge. You can go of on whatever tangents you want to try and take that point out of context but I don't want to go down any such rabbit-holes with you. You bid your hand within the system you are playing. Also, if your boundary for bids is consistently below what you say your agreement is, that is MI. The real agreement is what you actually play, not what you tell the opponents to mislead them.

[TylerE]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-17, 08:07, said:

You bid your hand within the system you are playing.

Which means, playing a system with 3 weak twos, as OP states, you open the hand 2♠. end of discussion.

[TylerE]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-17, 08:07, said:

You bid your hand within the system you are playing.

Which means, playing a system with 3 weak twos, as OP states, you open the hand 2♠. end of discussion.

[Gilithin]

TylerE, on 2021-September-17, 11:19, said:

Which means, playing a system with 3 weak twos, as OP states, you open the hand 2♠. end of discussion.

Gilithin, on 2021-September-16, 05:07, said:

Even if it was not the actual agreement at the table, the OP could have said that the system was Strong 2s and that 2♠ was a NFB to allow for a real discussion on the merits of this hand.