BBO Discussion Forums: rule to reply to 3 or 2 weak open - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1

rule to reply to 3 or 2 weak open

#1 User is offline   cencio 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 2017-August-11

Posted 2021-January-06, 15:07

Are there some rules for deciding when to go to game by replier? (Points of the hand, number of supporting card in the suit,winning trick). or one decides on a case by case basis
0

#2 User is online   Douglas43 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 412
  • Joined: 2020-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Isle of Man
  • Interests:Walking, boring my wife with bridge stories

Posted 2021-January-06, 15:36

Generally speaking, if you have 4 card support it's a 10 card fit and it's almost always right to bid 4 (unless maybe you have a weak flat hand and are vulnerable v non-vul)

If you have three card support you want a respectable opening bid for game to be possible.

With two card support you want at least a good 15 count

With a singleton you should be passing unless you have a terrific suit of your own (so you have tricks to run in 3NT).

Don't just count points, if you have a fit, look for aces and kings in side suits because queens and jacks may be opposite a shortage. If you don't have a fit, you need a suit that is a source of tricks.

Does that help?

Sorry OP - I read it as weak two opener and this is a ready reckoner for weak twos only.
0

#3 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,934
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2021-January-06, 15:51

Depends on style to some extent, how bad a hand partner will open at various vulnerabilities and positions. Opposite a 3M opener, generally you are playing partner for around 6 tricks on average, a bit more at unfavorable vul, 6.5-7. Like 6 tricks out of his 7 card suit with a good suit and not much outside, or perhaps 5 tricks out of the suit + a trick outside. So to raise to game your hand has to provide around 3.5-4 tricks to cover his losers. So count aces, top 3 trump honors as sure tricks. AK combos would be 2 tricks, AQ 1.5, bare K 0.5, etc. Side Stiff/void with a few trumps can be estimated as 1 or 2 covers also. Tend to always raise with 3+ support and shortness outside even if a little short of covers, it tends to be good advance sac or a light make. Be a bit conservative with flatter hands short on aces.

Generally, imagine a few average hands you would open 3, pair it with your hand as dummy, play it out in your head and see if you'd like to chance it.

Opposite a weak 2 opener, I raise to game either with a hand that rates to be good sac or light make (4 support and shortness, occasionally only 3 support), with flatter hands hoping to bid game on power generally I want at least a strong NT with 2+ support before I enquire with 2nt; with 14- I generally pass or raise to 3 only to block.
1

#4 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,125
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted 2021-January-06, 16:17

Like everything it's judgement.

Like everything around a preempt, it depends strongly on your partnership agreement as to what a preempt looks like.

The basic rule is "raise to Total Trumps pretty much automatically, raise to game if you can cover enough of partner's losers, pay attention to vulnerability (don't hang partner)."

The first part is simple - your weak 2s show 6 cards, 3 bids (usually) 7. So you raise one level with 3 card support and to game (okay, 2D-4D) with 4. It might make; if it doesn't, it's probably a good sacrifice. If it went 2-p-, then fourth hand (looks like the big one) doesn't get the 3 level to work out what to do either when you push the preempt.

The last part is pretty obvious, too - versus their game, you can afford to go down 1 at unfavourable, 2 at even and 3 at favourable vulnerabililty. If they don't have game, -1 doubled vulnerable loses to all partscores. So listen to the auction and allow it to override obviousness.

The middle part is the hard part. One easy thing to think about is that with 6 or 7 cards in trumps, partner is not likely to be long in any other suit (and if they are 6-4, then they're *really* short in the other two suits). So lower honours tend not to cover losers. Aces and Kings are good, outside Queens less so, and outside Jacks are "almost" irrelevant. Any honour will cover losers in the trump suit, but if you have AQT8 and partner opened 3, the queen probably doesn't give you anything over AT86, and it would be more useful somewhere else. (this is known as being "trump rich").

The other hard part is "how many losers does partner have?" and that's what depends on your agreements, and where we leave general and theory. If you've agreed disciplined (2/top 3 or 3/top 5 trumps for 2 level, AQJxxx Kxx isn't too strong in this position, for instance, and Rule of 2 and 3 (or 2/3/4) at the 3 level), then you have a very good idea what losers you have and which cards cover them. Over a weak 2, you have whatever 2NT ask you are using to help locate losers.

However, if you've agreed a more aggressive style, which allows you to preempt more often (at the cost of making these decisions harder when you are the one with the cards, and going down into nothing more often when they're all balanced out), then you have to cover at least one more loser, probably in trumps to bid game to make. If you go to a freewheeling style (where traditional weak 2s are opened, as well as say QTxxxx and a card NV), then you do so knowing that partner's guess to bid game will always be a crapshoot; sometimes you don't think you have enough, and partner has a good preempt and makes 4 like everyone else bids, sometimes you try and end up down 1 because you're one level higher than everyone else who didn't open that pile. You can do some things to mitigate that (especially something like Ogust after weak 2s to get a better feel), but it's the compromise you've decided to take to push the opponents around on the other hands.

Note that vulnerability and seat affect your openers as well. Obviously, if you're vulnerable, you should be more careful, especially if they're not. If you're in second seat, you should be more careful than first (because it's a 50-50 chance you're preempting partner, where in first seat it's 2-1 in your favour). If you're in third, you don't have to worry about your game, but you do have to worry about theirs, so now you're freer than first seat.

And responder, when deciding to try for game or push the preempt, needs to take all of that into consideration.

Short summary of longer answer: you can't be perfect, but there's good guidance to help you. After that, it's a matter of "playing the hand in the auction". Like a lot else in bridge, it comes down to good judgement - and the standard quote applies! (Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement)
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#5 User is offline   morecharac 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 2020-September-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cyclothymic dilettantism

Posted 2021-January-06, 17:09

View Postcencio, on 2021-January-06, 15:07, said:

Are there some rules for deciding when to go to game by replier? (Points of the hand, number of supporting card in the suit,winning trick). or one decides on a case by case basis

There are styles and agreements. It's best to think of bridge "rules" as something that's the right idea most of the time.

Our general approach is 25 expected HCP for 3NT, 25 and an eight-card major fit for 4/, 28 and eight for 5/. Everything else in bidding is finding a rough equivalent of those figures.

If voids are involved or winning shortness (like a dry ace) in opponents' suits can be treated by prorating what you need - 62.5% for major games, 70% for minor games, 80% for small slams, 90% for grand slams. These figures only apply in suit contracts. Example - opponents have a fit, you have a void in and a fit in ; between you and partner 20 HCP should be more than enough for game most of the time.

Losing Trick Count was the biggest advance in our bidding system once partner read an article that took away the fear of learning a new convention. It's a lot less mental work than length points and smoothes the learning curve. Finding 21-HCP games and avoiding the game-should-be-there partials is huge. There are lots of modifications for this or that combination of honours but just knowing the basic system will hone one's intuition. LTC starts to break down above the four level so it's not as useful for slams.

Sometimes bidding really does come down to intuition. Something might seem like its the right bid by every method you've ever seen, read, or heard, but that little voice telling you no turns out the be right. One of bridge's dirty little secrets.
0

#6 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:Writing, Learning, History, Politics

Posted 2021-January-07, 17:48

There is a rule called the 'Rule of 17' that has provoked nearly as much Discussion here as politics in the Water cooler.
It is of course a guideline - like don't cross the road without looking very carefully - unless of course there's a raging fire behind you.
It seems to work like this - your partner opens 2 of a major indicating a 6 card major suit.
IF you have 2+ trumps (an eight-card fit) AND your HCP plus your trumps is > or = to 17 then you can safely raise the contract to the four-level.
Obviously, you can (it's just a guideline) apply the same rule at the 1 level.
IF your partner opens a major at the one-level AND you have an eight-card fit, AND your trumps plus HCP is > OR = to 13 (assuming a 12 point opening) THEN it's safe to believe that a four-level contract is possible.
NB, guidelines, possible etc.
These 'rules' turn out to be related to the Law of total tricks. Obviously, if the splits are terrible or the opponents are craftier than you are then anything can happen.
You can have a lot of fun playing with this equation and come up with rules for making slam and rules for NT contracts. You will provoke endless debate here and elsewhere, but they do help as a general starting point to get you rolling.
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek, J'ai toujours misé sur l'étrange gentillesse des robots.
0

#7 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,387
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2021-January-07, 18:21

Opposite a 3-level preempt in a major, assume that opener has six losers outside the trump suit. So you need to cover three of them if you have no losers in the trump suit:
- An ace obviously covers one loser
- AK covers two losers unless it is opposite partner's singleton but then again, you may have time to discard a loser in another suit. So let's say two losers
- KQ usually just covers one loser but sometimes partner has three cards and the ace is onside (or partner has the jack), or you may have time to establish the suit for discard in another suit. Then again, KQ can be useless if partner has a singleton in that suit. So count it as covering 1.25 losers or thereabouts.
- KJ requires partner to have at least two cards in the suit and it requires a finesse (or partner must have the Jack) so let's say it covers 0.75 loser or so.

Opposite 3 of a minor, assume partner has something like AQxxxxx so for 3NT you need either to have the king yourself, or have double stoppers in the side suits plus plus three cards in partner's suit. Allow yourself a bit of luck: sometimes a finesse works, sometimes they don't find the killing lead, sometimes partner has a useful half-stop or entry in a side suit. But if you have a small doubleton in partner's suit and only single stoppers in two sidesuits, don't bid 3NT.
When did pass become a 4-letter word? --- WinstonM
0

#8 User is offline   DavidKok 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 2020-March-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2021-January-07, 18:43

View Postpilowsky, on 2021-January-07, 17:48, said:

There is a rule called the 'Rule of 17' [...].
IF you have 2+ trumps (an eight-card fit) AND your HCP plus your trumps is > or = to 17 then you can safely raise the contract to the four-level.

As far as I know this rule is some kind of minimum for investigating game. You cannot safely raise to the four-level, but you can safely pass with a lower sum (or so the rule claims).
But as mentioned by others, partnership agreements are far more important than any of these rules. If my regular partner opens 3, first in hand, favourable vulnerability, I'm staying mum with 18 points and 3-card support. Whereas a 2 opening, second in hand, unfavourable vulnerability might well have game chances opposite the right 13 with only 2 spades.
0

#9 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:Writing, Learning, History, Politics

Posted 2021-January-07, 22:41

View PostDavidKok, on 2021-January-07, 18:43, said:

As far as I 'know' this rule is some kind of minimum for investigating game.


Thank you - can I have a reference for this knowledge?
In my experience (which is not a good guideline by any stretch) it is commonly possible to make game with numbers at or below the rule of 17 (or whatever rule you may arrive at).
I am interested to know about your idea that I have this the wrong way round.
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek, J'ai toujours misé sur l'étrange gentillesse des robots.
0

#10 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,934
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2021-January-07, 23:22

View Postpilowsky, on 2021-January-07, 22:41, said:

Thank you - can I have a reference for this knowledge?
In my experience (which is not a good guideline by any stretch) it is commonly possible to make game with numbers at or below the rule of 17 (or whatever rule you may arrive at).
I am interested to know about your idea that I have this the wrong way round.


https://www.larryco....cles/rule-of-17
It's mostly a guideline for flat/misfitting/not huge fit hands opposite a weak 2 as to when to start thinking about exploring/inviting game mostly on power. Big trump fits with ruffing values/running side suits should obviously upgrade and violate this rule, raise on less. Misfits and lack of fast tricks outside (quacks rather than aces), lack of shape outside should be conservative.
It still mostly boils down to imagining a handful of typical hands for partner and playing out the hand in your head, and think about whether you want to invite/bid game/stay low.

Also think about the opps hands and how strong they rate to be, there are some hands where you want to take the advance sac (particularly with good shape that might be a lucky make), others where you are strong enough that although you don't really think you can make game (so don't want to raise), you have enough that you want to try to buy the contract lower (4th hand may not have right hand to balance).

It's not an *always* bid to law of total tricks situation, try to estimate what you can make and what they can make, and be vulnerability aware.
0

#11 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:Writing, Learning, History, Politics

Posted 2021-January-08, 00:47

View PostStephen Tu, on 2021-January-07, 23:22, said:

https://www.larryco....cles/rule-of-17
It's mostly a guideline for flat/misfitting/not huge fit hands opposite a weak 2 as to when to start thinking about exploring/inviting game mostly on power. Big trump fits with ruffing values/running side suits should obviously upgrade and violate this rule, raise on less. Misfits and lack of fast tricks outside (quacks rather than aces), lack of shape outside should be conservative.
It still mostly boils down to imagining a handful of typical hands for partner and playing out the hand in your head, and think about whether you want to invite/bid game/stay low.

Also think about the opps hands and how strong they rate to be, there are some hands where you want to take the advance sac (particularly with good shape that might be a lucky make), others where you are strong enough that although you don't really think you can make game (so don't want to raise), you have enough that you want to try to buy the contract lower (4th hand may not have right hand to balance).

It's not an *always* bid to law of total tricks situation, try to estimate what you can make and what they can make, and be vulnerability aware.


I'm pretty sure that's what I said, but David seems to be suggesting something more nuanced. I'm wondering what he means. I agree with your comment - and Larry fwiw. :)
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek, J'ai toujours misé sur l'étrange gentillesse des robots.
0

#12 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,934
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2021-January-08, 01:19

View Postpilowsky, on 2021-January-08, 00:47, said:

I'm pretty sure that's what I said, but David seems to be suggesting something more nuanced.


Your original statement essentially stated:"rule of 17 met = raise weak two to game".
David was correcting the statement that rule of 17 (I think originated by Colchamiro) is actually:"rule of 17 met = min to *investigate* game, don't always bid it".I.e. bid 2nt, if partner shows a max bid game, if partner shows a min you may only want to stop at 3 if you are only at 17 rather than say 20.

These are different statements. The correct formulation is to invite game on the rule of 17 with flat hands, not to just blast game even opposite minimums.

1

#13 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:Writing, Learning, History, Politics

Posted 2021-January-08, 04:15

View PostStephen Tu, on 2021-January-08, 01:19, said:

Your original statement essentially stated:"rule of 17 met = raise weak two to game".
David was correcting the statement that rule of 17 (I think originated by Colchamiro) is actually:"rule of 17 met = min to *investigate* game, don't always bid it".I.e. bid 2nt, if partner shows a max bid game, if partner shows a min you may only want to stop at 3 if you are only at 17 rather than say 20.

These are different statements. The correct formulation is to invite game on the rule of 17 with flat hands, not to just blast game even opposite minimums.



I think that you should read the posts a little more carefully, and let David speak for himself. Of course, that's just my opinion.
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek, J'ai toujours misé sur l'étrange gentillesse des robots.
0

#14 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,506
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2021-January-08, 04:53

Firstly, depends what you call a weak 2, is KQJxxx and an ace 2 or 1 ?

What I do if playing traditional weak 2s is look at my trump holding and think "do I want to be in game opposite KQJxxx in a 6322 and out". If so I bid game, I adjust by the trump honours I have, if I have one of AKQ I assume partner has 6 to the other 2 and out.

I then look at the best reasonably probable hand that would be included in my weak 2, if it makes game but doesn't justify bidding game directly, invite.
0

#15 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,227
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2021-January-08, 20:33

You can learn about this rule of 17 and a lot of other rules in Mel Colchamiro's excellent How You Can Play Like An Expert (Without Having To Be One). Be advised though, that it is not a beginner book.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#16 User is offline   thepossum 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,277
  • Joined: 2018-July-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2021-January-15, 01:28

Totally non expert view

I did a small analysis of weak 2s and often assume 7 losers and 5 tricks on average (using 2,3,4 trick preempts with a partner that makes no adjustments)

So I look at tricks and losers etc
0

#17 User is offline   thepossum 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,277
  • Joined: 2018-July-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2021-January-15, 01:28

Totally non expert view

I did a small analysis of weak 2s and often assume 7 losers and 5 tricks on average (using 2,3,4 trick preempts with a partner that makes no adjustments)

So I look at tricks and losers etc., If I have a trump fit etc. Then decide if it's worth raising (looks like game or invite) or should be passed. I look at points more in other situations

EDIT Clarification. I know opener is not supposed to rebid except with a a positive response so I bear that in mind and figure my bid is what we hope for. If partner has a good weak two I have no problems with them bidding to game. But usually I would bid to game, pass or 2nT positive

I always like 2-4-6 auctions. You reckon we can make 2, in that case we can make 4, well in that case we can make 6

Similar philosophy for 3 opening bids. In that case 7 losers and 6 tricks etc

PS My first ref for 234 was Pavlicek I believe. Not sure
0

#18 User is offline   DavidKok 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 2020-March-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2021-January-15, 06:13

There are lots of preemptive styles out there. Since by design preempting is supposed to be high-variance it is very difficult to assess what the best strategy is in the long run, but one guaranteed way to lose big is by having differing expectations from your partner. So for most partnerships your effort should go towards settling on a set of expectations, any expectations, and then sticking with them.

If in addition you want your preempts to be very effective, I personally am a big fan of the sequence on preempts written by Andrew Gumperz. I have been assured the articles can also all be found on his own website, although I have so far failed to navigate it.

In addition I have recently read Kit Woolsey's "Matchpoints", which also contains a chapter on preempts. He makes several similar points to Andrew, and explains why for example holding the ace of trumps is bad when preempting, having length in a side suit is also not ideal, and sometimes it pays to fib the number of trumps (in either direction). He also briefly covers the rules of 1-2-3 and 2-3-4. Furthermore I remember Peter Fredin having a rule to never preempt on 7-2-2-2 shape, because you will push the opponents into a making game too often.

Lastly I want to confirm that Stephen correctly identified what I meant. I think the "rule of 17" reads "If you have 16 or less, stop now, if you have 17 or more, investigate (but not necessarily jump to) game".
0

#19 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,709
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2021-January-15, 15:03

I'm late to this thread, mostly because the topic is complex.

Vulnerability matters, as does the form of scoring.

Most experienced players vary their preemptive opening style according to vulnerability and many, including me, by seat.

Thus my 2nd seat unfavourable 3S opening will be very different from my 1st seat favourable bid. In 1st seat, there are two opponents who could hold big hands, and only one partner. In second seat, one of the opps has already passed, so has limited values, and the chance that the hand belongs to them is reduced.

Also, being red means that going down, even undoubled, is more expensive than when white, and so on.

This plays into responder's decision making. If partner opens in a seat where he is likely to have a sound opening, then we need lesser values to raise.

If my partner opened 3S at favourable in 1st seat, I'd need a good playing hand to bid. Style, as I suggested, matters. I play a very aggressive preempting style at favourable, a sound style at unfavourable and an in-between style at equal, and this is a common, but not universal, approach.

With that in mind, we have to decide why we want to raise.

Are we furthering the preempt? We do that when we have modest high card values, partner has preempted and RHO has passed or taken a call. We are not bidding to make, although sometimes we may have a 'two way' action, where we may make or have a good sacrifice. These hands will typically have good trump support, so we have a 9 card fit (or better) at the 3-level and hope for a 10 card fit at the 4-level. They will usually have some side shortness, hoping to find that partner has 2 or 3 cards there, and so we can score a ruff in the short hand.

Or are we bidding because we think we may have a game?

In that case, we may be bidding on having a good hand in terms of high cards, or a good hand in terms of shape, or both.

When we open a weak two bid, it is useful to have some way for responder to ask opener for more information. While there are a number of schemes, probably the most common are 'feature ask' and Ogust, which asks about good-bad suit and hand.

For example, in one partnership we play that 2N, in response to 2M, asks for feature (side Ace or King) if we are vulnerable, when our two bids are disciplined, and asks for a description of the hand (a form of Ogust) if we are white, where our style is pretty loose.

I don't use 'Rules', since I find them to substitute a formula for judgement, but it takes years to develop judgement, so I do see a role for Rules for newer players. Just be aware that the simpler the Rule, the less precise it will be.

Here's what I look for:

1. partner's seat and the vulnerability, to get me thinking whether partner may be being aggressive or conservative.

2. The degree of fit I have

3. My shape: having a 10 card fit is no assurance of success. If he is 7222 and we are 4333, we may have an 11 card fit but he has 6 side suit losers. Even if he is say 7321, we still have 6 side suit losers to cover. So unless I have a lot of high card strength, I'd like to at least have a chance of letting him score a ruff in my hand. I will be far more aggressive with a side stiff (or void!) than with a balanced hand, unless I think I can count a lot of winners.

4. over a weak 2 bid, if at favourable, I won't move with a balanced 14 count as one example, but would make an enquiry if we were red. But that's because we open very aggressively at favourable, and I don't expect to miss game: we open a lot of 10 counts with 1M when holding a 6 card suit. If your style is more conservative, then you need a correspondingly weaker hand to enquire.

5. The same principle applies over 3 level preempts. Say I hold Kxx AQxx Qx KJxx and partner opens in 1st seat with 3D. While he may have AKxxxxx in diamonds, he is more likely to hold KJxxxx and no side Ace or King, so bidding 3N, hoping for a non-vulnerable game, is distinctly against the odds. Again, if your style is that the worst he'd have, missing the Q, is AJ10xxxx, then bid 3N

6. Sort of summarizing my thinking: if I am aiming for game in his suit, I want 'cover cards' which offer a chance of covering enough losers that we can make game. A cover card is a high honour or shortness, with trump. If I am aiming for 3N, often the best game when one expects to run a suit, I look at whether I can fill in his suit and whether I can see a reasonable path to 9 tricks from my side. Note that
I am not giving you any 'number'. When looking at 3N opposite a weak 2 or a 3 bid, I want to count winners (which is why I need to have at least one top card in his suit) and stoppers.....AQx Axx Kxx Kxxx. Partner opens 3H: this is an easy 3N, not 4H. Any non-heart lead they make gives me a trick in that suit, and even if he has QJxxxxx, and it's too pessimistic to allow for that even tho it's within our favourable vulnerability style, the King may drop or they can't manage to untangle 5 tricks before I get 9. IOW, I tend to be more interested in how many tricks we can take, and whether I can cover losers, than I am in adding hcp and distribution to come up with a 'number'.

Sorry for the length, and I hope this helps at least some readers:)
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
2

#20 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,663
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2021-January-26, 22:38

It is about 80 years old now but the best write-up of this I have seen is still Culbertson's white book. The good part about that is that almost every public library in the English speaking world above a certain size has a copy. Bidding theory has moved on since Ely's day but there is still some wisdom to be found in parts of these old texts. The section on playing tricks and support tricks is one such chapter that might be a useful read, particularly if combined with the ideas in more modern texts on competitive bidding.
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1


Fast Reply

  

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users