[gwnn]

miamijd, on 2017-October-27, 15:44, said:

Your 3H bids must be a lot stronger than mine. After 1C - 1H (opps passing), I would bid 3H with

AQx
QJxx
x
Axxxx

which doesn't play very well at all for 4H opposite the hand I gave earlier. But that's just me.

Cheers,
mike

So your best counterargument is to someone telling you your bid being second favorite instead of first favorite is us going down 4H-2 instead of 3H-1 on 18 HCP together? Are you sure you've thought this through?

Are you contesting the idea that a 3514 is a much stronger distribution than 3433 or are you just wasting everyone's time?

[miamijd]

gwnn, on 2017-October-27, 18:49, said:

So your best counterargument is to someone telling you your bid being second favorite instead of first favorite is us going down 4H-2 instead of 3H-1 on 18 HCP together? Are you sure you've thought this through?

Are you contesting the idea that a 3514 is a much stronger distribution than 3433 or are you just wasting everyone's time?

I think you are taking my example too literally. My point is that downgrading a hand in a non competitive auction at IMPs is not winning bridge. As for partner going on over 4h he shouldn't without an opening bid of his own. If you have a true moose you need a bid other than a raise to game to handle it. There are lots of alternatives. 4h shouldn't be bid on 19 good ones and a stiff for example.

And there is no need to be nasty. If you think I'm wasting your time please be nice and just not respond

Mike

[johnu]

miamijd, on 2017-October-27, 15:46, said:

I dunno. A lot of folks here seem to want to be extremely careful not to bid games that don't make. To me, that's losing bridge. I'd much rather bid a game that doesn't make than miss one that does. At IMPs, of course, the rewards for game outweigh the downside of overbidding. But even at MPs, declarer play is a whole lot easier than defense Meckwell has shown that for decades.

Too bad responder doesn't know that there is game bonus for bidding game

[gwnn]

miamijd, on 2017-October-27, 20:58, said:

I think you are taking my example too literally. My point is that downgrading a hand in a non competitive auction at IMPs is not winning bridge. As for partner going on over 4h he shouldn't without an opening bid of his own. If you have a true moose you need a bid other than a raise to game to handle it. There are lots of alternatives. 4h shouldn't be bid on 19 good ones and a stiff for example.

And there is no need to be nasty. If you think I'm wasting your time please be nice and just not respond

Mike

Sorry for being nasty. My point was that a minimum 3433 should not accept the game invite, but a minimum 3514 should. Are you disputing this? Your example was terrible (incredibly unlikely, for one), but that is not really the point. If you seriously are saying that re-evaluating your hand based on later information (such as: we have a 9-card fit and a stiff, and partner has a non-minimum) is out of the question, then I will take your advice and stop responding.

Finally, I'm not downgrading anything, I just have a different range than you do. Anyone, on any hand, can say "oh come on guys! there's a game bonus!!", to justify bidding game. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be a limit to it. The two of us are disagreeing on a jack or so. Doesn't make me an underbidder and/or you an overbidder.

[Malachi]

Of course you can consider bidding 1c 1h 3h with

AQx
QJxx
x
Axxxx

and it will work some of the time, but when your partner bids 4h with

xxx
Kxxxx
x
QTxx

and you go down, it's because opener's hand is weak, not responder's. Also note that 4H is not hopeless despite the duplication in diamonds, and it's because of responder's excellent hand with 5 trumps and the double-fit, which only responder knows about.

It's not necessarily a contradiction to bid 3H with both

AQJ
QJxx
AJx
KJx

(18pts)

and

AQx
QJxx
x
Axxxx

(16pts)

but if I have to eliminate one hand to make the range tighter, it's going to be the second one, not the first.

You want to play your invitations so that it's correct to accept them most of the time.

[Phil]

Good discussion.

With the 4-trip and tenaces, I prefer 2N, unless playing the 3♦ gadget. Partner knows the value of a game, and knows that there isn't a lot of difference between 2N-1 and 3N or 4♥-2, so I don't have to bid his hand for him. I have 7 losers and a bunch of quacks, so I'm not overjoyed even though its "19 with a fit".

With a 5♥332 partner will prefer 3N. That's just fine with me. Oh, we had a 9 card fit? Didn't notice.

With an unbalanced hand, I expect partner to checkback.

[cherdano]

miamijd, on 2017-October-27, 15:44, said:

Your 3H bids must be a lot stronger than mine. After 1C - 1H (opps passing), I would bid 3H with

AQx
QJxx
x
Axxxx

which doesn't play very well at all for 4H opposite the hand I gave earlier. But that's just me.

Cheers,
mike

We should start a list of BBF discussion meta rules.

Here is my entry for today: If you need a singleton opposite a singleton to give an example of another poster's bidding style going wrong, then you probably shouldn't post that example.

[gwnn]

Phil, on 2017-October-31, 17:39, said:

Good discussion.

With the 4-trip and tenaces, I prefer 2N, unless playing the 3♦ gadget. Partner knows the value of a game, and knows that there isn't a lot of difference between 2N-1 and 3N or 4♥-2, so I don't have to bid his hand for him. I have 7 losers and a bunch of quacks, so I'm not overjoyed even though its "19 with a fit".

With a 5♥332 partner will prefer 3N. That's just fine with me. Oh, we had a 9 card fit? Didn't notice.

With an unbalanced hand, I expect partner to checkback.

check back for 4-card support if he has a 4432 or 4441 (any order)?

[Malachi]

I get that opener isn't all that excited about the heart fit, but responder needs to know about the heart fit in order to evaluate his hand. Otherwise he passes or bids for the wrong reasons.

Is responder really going to "check back" with any imbalanced hand, no matter how few high cards, when opener's 2N bid indicates that responder's shortness will have negative value?

Also, a lot is being made of staying out of 4H with 8 and 9 card fits. I know that this can be correct, but don't we also know that this is unusual? Besides, opener's 3H rebid does not go beyond 3N. It is within responder's power, with notrump distribution, to suggest 3N.

[Phil]

gwnn, on 2017-November-01, 01:06, said:

check back for 4-card support if he has a 4432 or 4441 (any order)?

With 4-4, partner is supposed to bid 3♠. Yes I realize we may miss a good 4-4 heart fit when he is unbalanced with 4.

Checkback nominally shows 5M unless there's a surprise somewhere else (like 5m).

[gwnn]

Phil, on 2017-November-01, 18:32, said:

With 4-4, partner is supposed to bid 3♠. Yes I realize we may miss a good 4-4 heart fit when he is unbalanced with 4.

Checkback nominally shows 5M unless there's a surprise somewhere else (like 5m).

Sorry, I meant 4432 any order or 4441 any order. Anyway, I think it's just masterminding to deny 4-card fit here, and I'm surprised you are espousing it. Of course I agree that a 3♦ toy would be nice to have.

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2017-October-27, 03:27, said:

That's a pretty obvious 4H bid (over 1C-1H; 3H) to me. You have a singleton and 5 trumps. There's nothing contradictory about accepting an invitation on a minimum response. This is a minimum 3514 (which should accept), not a minimum 3433 (which should not accept).

to clarify, though, I think 4H is by no means awful, it is my second choice.

My first choice is 2NT and my second choice is still 2NT.

I will mention some simple facts to consider for the heart raisers:

With regards to game bidding hearts must play 2 tricks better before showing a significant IMPs profit compared to game at notrumps.
Simulation has shown that even if partner has a random 5♥332, 3NT is more likely to make than game in hearts opposite a random 4♥333.
Apart from the distribution the honor structure of this 4333 hand looks to me much more suitable for notrumps, that is a preponderance of lower honors in all suits.

I ran a simulation (1000 deals), giving partner 4-5 hearts, no more than 4 spades and at least 5 HCP with no upper limit.

Result:

3NT made double dummy on 866 (87%) deals
Average number of tricks in notrumps was 10.2
4♥ made on 737 (74%) deals
Average number of tricks in hearts was 10.4

Comparative Analysis:

When 4♥ made, 3NT will make in 96% of these deals
When 4 ♥ fails, 3NT will still make in 61% of these deals

When 3NT makes, 4♥ will only make in 82% of these deals
When 3NT fails, 4♥ will make only in 23% of these deals

Now remember you will sometimes reach 4♥ on those deals where 3NT fails even after you rebid 2NT, because North will often be unbalanced in those scenarios.
I made no assumptions about North distribution except the ones stated above.
Of course agreements after a jump rebid into 2NT helps.
I personally like transfers. If partner transfers into his bid major he guarantees at least five, but is never 5332 unless he is very weak and intends to pass next.

The opposite is not true:
It is quite tough to reach 3NT after you bid 4♥ straight away.
Even after a jump raise few partnerships can stop in 3NT.

On top it is well known that this double dummy analysis understates the advantage of 3NT over 4♥, mainly because single dummy the defense does not always find the best lead against 3NT.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

That's definitely a thought-provoking post, rhm! For me, I'll stick to showing a fit when I have one, but I'm open to the idea that I haven't thought this through too much. Some thoughts:

• Partner will pass 2NT when 4H makes sometimes (weak hand, 5-card major, or 4-card with a stiff).
  
• We may "find" 4H instead of 3NT (or 6H instead of 6C/6N), but partner will never know of a 4-4 fit if we denied it.
  
• I'm naturally lazy so I will stick to the system i.e. 2NT categorically denies 4-card support.
  
• Thanks for the post, I'll think more about it!

Having a way to differentiate the 14 counts with a stiff from the baddish 18 counts would definitely help (as mentioned several times in this thread) - I assume you'd be happy to make that bid, rhm? Actually most of my systems had this (hard not to when you're playing a lot of artificial crap) but now I'll insist more if I start a new partnership. Or at least having 1m-1M; 3M-3NT as COG ("do you have a mexican NT??") would be something.

[awm]

This particular hand is 3433 with cards in all suits and somewhat slow values. Rebidding 2nt may work well here — but I doubt it’s a good tactic on all 18-19 hands with a fit (suppose a small doubleton somewhere for example).

[steve2005]

PhilG007, on 2017-October-26, 08:26, said:

3NT is best as you want the lead to come up to the strong hand with its tenaces. North should not disturb this unless
he has 6+ ♥ With 19 pts opposite partners known minimum of 6 I want to be in a game contract.

Congratulations if 6♥ is there you have probably missed it.

[steve2005]

rhm, on 2017-November-02, 12:45, said:

My first choice is 2NT and my second choice is still 2NT.

I will mention some simple facts to consider for the heart raisers:

With regards to game bidding hearts must play 2 tricks better before showing a significant IMPs profit compared to game at notrumps.

Rainer Herrmann

I accept that it probably doesn't make that much difference at imps between 3N/4♥ as far as game
but what are the stats on slam. If responder has 4/5 ♥ there could be a slam and responder often won't be investigating as they don't know about fit.

[Wendelin]

Maybe you should change to the French Standard System SEF. There is a conventional bid for those hands. 3SA ist reserved for balanced hands with 18/19 HCP. Looks like you get the best of both worlds.
Personally I am very surprised by the simulations rhm made and I should think more about those hands as I am a 4♥ bidder so far. I dont think 3♥ is a good compromise as then the bid is not reserved for unbalanced hands any more.

[gwnn]

steve2005, on 2017-November-06, 09:17, said:

I accept that it probably doesn't make that much difference at imps between 3N/4♥ as far as game
but what are the stats on slam. If responder has 4/5 ♥ there could be a slam and responder often won't be investigating as they don't know about fit.

My main concern is finding game vs responder passing 2NT. I don't think responder should do anything but pass 2NT on the famous 3514 hand from earlier this thread. I'm fully prepared to accept that this ensemble of hands is probably not enough to change rhm's stats, but it would be interesting to check somehow.

[steve2005]

gwnn, on 2017-November-06, 22:49, said:

My main concern is finding game vs responder passing 2NT. I don't think responder should do anything but pass 2NT on the famous 3514 hand from earlier this thread. I'm fully prepared to accept that this ensemble of hands is probably not enough to change rhm's stats, but it would be interesting to check somehow.

Nothing stops you from finding game if you leave open possibility of investigating slam. Slam is likely less than 10% of the hands. But if responder has 5♥ you are going to miss slams if you don't show 4♥. The simulations seemed to indicate 3N/4♥ are fairly close so why not show 4♥. I didn't see anything in the simulations about 4♥ vs 3N if responder has 5♥ but I may have missed it.

Also, responder may be bidding game when you show 4♥ and passing 2N if you don't.

[gwnn]

steve2005, on 2017-November-07, 06:53, said:

Also, responder may be bidding game when you show 4♥ and passing 2N if you don't.

This was my point