[ochinko]

I can understand 1NT, and if you swap clubs and hearts, I'd bid 1NT too.

But I can never understand the masterminding of bidding 1♠ if you don't have some magic bid other than 1♠ that would describe a hand with nine points less and only three spades when you would be forced to bid 1♠. (Boy, what a sentence, should show how appalled I am that people don't bid their hand with 2♠ here. )

Edit: 1♠ bidders basically say that regarding a possible game(slam) in spades, having

xxx
xxx
xxxx
xxx

is the same as having

Hxxx
HHx
xxx
HHx

[lowerline]

hrothgar, on Jul 2 2007, 10:43 AM, said:

Here's a hand that cropped up in a tournament this morning. I was curious what folks might bid.

You hold

♠ J863
♥ AT5
♦ 864
♣ KJ3

The auction starts

(1♥) - X - (P) - ???

What's your call?

1NT in MPs, but 1♠ in IMPs...

Steven

[gwnn]

oops sorry didnt read the thread properly silly post

[jdeegan]

awm, on Jul 2 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

I'd go with 1♠. Note that game isn't great opposite a hand like:

♠KQxx ♥x ♦Axxx ♣Axxx

I normally like the idea of placing partner with some (i.e. more than one) generic hands when analyzing bidding problems. My problem with this one is that versus most experienced opponents, it doesn't exist. With nearly half the high cards and a nine card heart fit, they haven't raised hearts.
True, lho may have a 6 or 7 bagger in hearts, but this is low percentage. The odds that partner is strong and off-shape looks greater than normal. If I bid 1♠, the odds are small that it will go all pass, and we will be in a bad contract - my main worry. So, 1♠ makes sense to me.

[whereagles]

I would bid either

1NT + 2♠
1♠ + dbl
2♠

depending on tactical factors. Under normal cirumstances, probably 2♠.

[foo]

awm, on Jul 3 2007, 01:44 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 2 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

awm, on Jul 2 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

I'd go with 1♠. Note that game isn't great opposite a hand like:

♠KQxx ♥x ♦Axxx ♣Axxx

Yes, Ken mentioned this hand. Because he was quoting me.

Anyways, thanks to Ken Rexford for attributing the hand I suggested to me, then discussing how problematic this hand type could be for the 2♠ bidders in more detail than I thought to post.

Foo's post, on the other hand, attributed this hand to Ken three times very specifically. Occasionally I come up with an idea that other people actually agree with and listen to (rare I know!) -- it's just polite to attribute such things to the person who actually suggests them.

I very much apologize. I simply quoted Ken's post when answering Ken's questions.

No offense or disrespect towards you was intended or implied by me. I simply was answering Ken's questions.

(gods, this is beginning to sound like intellectual property case law. We are seriously discussing who "owns" a specific bridge example?)

I in fact often agree with most of what you post. Which is why I usually don't spend much time responding to or about it! Ironic.

[foo]

Codo, on Jul 3 2007, 01:49 AM, said:

I think that BWS or any other system which says that 1 any X pass 1 another
shows 0-9 HCPs has a big disadvantage compared with other systems, where this just shows 0-7. Just because the gap is quite high. Where are the upsides?
(Besides that it is played this way since Eli Culbertson was your hero?)

A T/O X is supposed to be a hand that =at the least= evaluates to a minimum opening bid in support of what ever suit Advancer chooses. Just as an overcall is supposed to evaluate to the playing strength of at least a minimum opening bid.

The reason a minimum Advance of a T/O shows ~0-9 is that a minimum response to an opening bid shows ~6-9 and in addition you must allow Advancer to bid with 0-5 because the T/O Doubler has forced Advancer to bid (except in the rare cases where Advancer will make a penalty pass.)

Think of a T/O X as a way to "open" the bidding for the overcalling side just as an overcall does.

The ranges used here have nothing to do with "fashion" and everything to do with logic. Culbertson and Goren used the same ranges that Miles, Lawrence, Hardy, Grant, etc etc do now. Because the range is dictated by the cards. Not fashion.

[foo]

ochinko, on Jul 3 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

I can understand 1N, and if you swap clubs and hearts, I'd bid 1N too.

But I can never understand the masterminding of bidding 1♠ if you don't have some magic bid other than 1♠ that would describe a hand with nine points less and only three spades when you would be forced to bid 1♠. (Boy, what a sentence, should show how appalled I am that people don't bid their hand with 2♠ here. )

Edit: 1♠ bidders basically say that regarding a possible game(slam) in spades, having

xxx xxx xxxx xxx  is the same as having  Hxxx HHx xxx HHx

No.

xxx xxx xxxx xxx has 12 losers

Hxxx HHx xxx HHx has at most 7 1/2 losers if H= (A, K, or Q)
(besides the minimum hand of this pattern is Qxxx.KQx.xxx.KQx- a 12 count)
(if you allow "H" to include J's, a bad idea, then we are talking
Qxxx.KJx.xxx.KJx- a soft 9 1/2 loser 10 count that should be downgraded to ~an 8 count.)

Despite both being 4333's with no ruffing potential, the 2nd is clearly a much better hand in terms of playing strength.

Since We teach novices to count losers as the first part of planning the play in a suit contract, it would seem to make sense to include how many losers your hand has in evaluating how good your hand is for a suit contract.

1♠ is the "book bid" with the OP hand, not some mastermind bid.

[Fluffy]

This thread is named simple enough, why are there so many posts?

[ochinko]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 03:05 PM, said:

1♠ is the "book bid" with the OP hand, not some mastermind bid.

In my book the normal bid with 8-11 points and 4 spades is 2♠, 3♠ with the same points and a five cards suit. Yes, I would prefer to have a better shape, who wouldn't? 2♠ is still the proper bid even at MP unless you want 1♠ to mean "from zero to infinity".

When do you think the time will come to show signs of life, when LHO bids 2/3/4♥, and two passes follow to you?

It is completely possible that both sides have a game, and being MP, LHO decides there's not much point in announcing his minor suit that would provide the tricks. Both sides have two fits, who is more likely to win, how could it be the one that is playing dead?

[kenberg]

Fluffy, on Jul 3 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

This thread is named simple enough, why are there so many posts?

Well, there seem to be a goodly number of posts trying to sort out who Ken is and what he said.

[Gerben42]

I've never played something else than 2♠ = 8 - 11, 4+♠ here. Now we have a bad 9 and the question boils down to if it's bad enough to respond 1♠. I don't think so, this hand is much better than Jxxx KJx xxx ATx.

So I would think the 1♠-bidders are a bit too passive.

I cannot imagine bidding 1NT on the actual hand. On the already mentioned Jxxx KJx xxx ATx I consider it because now 2♠ is really pushing it.

Quote

The reason a minimum Advance of a T/O shows ~0-9 is that a minimum response to an opening bid shows ~6-9 and in addition you must allow Advancer to bid with 0-5 because the T/O Doubler has forced Advancer to bid (except in the rare cases where Advancer will make a penalty pass.)

I can just say NO here. You did not take into account here that to the assumed 4-card 1♠ minimum opener, advancer can bid 1♠ AND 2♠.

1♠ = 0 - 7
2♠ = 8 - 11
3♠ = preempt (remember pd opened some kind of 4-card 1♠)

If you bid 1♠ with the actual hand, you will be badly placed whatever the auction is. Partner will play you for less.

Quote

I'd go with 1♠. Note that game isn't great opposite a hand like:

♠KQxx ♥x ♦Axxx ♣Axxx

Playing the style above, you'd invite with this.

[kenrexford]

ochinko, on Jul 3 2007, 07:38 AM, said:

When do you think the time will come to show signs of life, when LHO bids 2/3/4♥, and two passes follow to you?

The solution is not to announce more playing strength than you have. That just yields the same 3/4♥ and an overbid by partner.

If partner has, say, the 6-7 covers (honors plus shortness) that you need for a game, he will be able to double or do something else intelligent after 1♠-2/3/4♥-?

Not all hands with 8-11 HCP's are created equal. As a simple example, ♠Axxx ♥KJx ♦xxx ♣xxx is a hand with "8-11 HCP" and four spades, but this is simple terrible contextually.

If a TOX shows an expectation of three honors and a ruffing value, a ten-loser hand expects, opposite that minimum, to lose six tricks in the wash, for down one at the two-level. Further, if partner will raise your jump to game with four honors and two ruffing values, you will be down one in game. So, does a jump indicate that you need partner to have five honors and two ruffing values? That's quite a technique. Partner apparently needs something like ♠KQxx ♥x ♦AQxx ♣Axxx?

If that is the case, then 1♥-X-P-1♠-P-2♠ must logically show something like six honors and two ruffing values? ♠KQxx ♥x ♦AQxx ♣AQxx?

This might work, if partner always has four-card support. The problem seems to crop up when partner has a mere three cards in spades (more obviously a concern after a minor opening and a double with 4-3/3-4 in the majors). There just does not seem to be enough room to settle the problem of strength and fit.

[foo]

ochinko, on Jul 3 2007, 07:38 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 03:05 PM, said:

1♠ is the "book bid" with the OP hand, not some mastermind bid.

In my book the normal bid with 8-11 points and 4 spades is 2♠, 3♠ with the same points and a five cards suit. Yes, I would prefer to have a better shape, who wouldn't? 2♠ is still the proper bid even at MP unless you want 1♠ to mean "from zero to infinity".

8 HCP is a bit light for a 2♠ response here, just as it would be to Invite game opposite a minimum opening bid with 8 HCP.

The hands that do invite opposite an opening bid with less than traditional HCP do so because they have other shape based assets commonly called Dummy Points. Here, the T/O X'er has already included Our side's Dummy Points in =their= hand.
Bidding the same assets 2x is a good way to get too high.

An Invite opposite an opening bid is (9) 10-11 (12) HCP. Since the T/O X basically shows an opening bid, the same logic applies.

The ~0-9 HCP range is not even close to "from zero to infinity". That's hyperbole on your part.

Quote

When do you think the time will come to show signs of life, when LHO bids 2/3/4♥, and two passes follow to you?

If "life" means "overbid", then you are really asking to be "killed".
In this case, if the auction comes back to us after
(1H)-X-pa-1S;<2H somewhere by Them>-??
we can then X to show that we are at the top of our previously stated range.

Quote

It is completely possible that both sides have a game, and being MP, LHO decides there's not much point in announcing his minor suit that would provide the tricks. Both sides have two fits, who is more likely to win, how could it be the one that is playing dead?

It =is= MP. Bidding your cards as accurately as possible and getting to Absolute Par as fast as possible is what wins. Not overbidding.
Even Red @ IMPs where we "stretch" a bit, we still only stretch =a bit=.


No one in this thread is advocating "playing dead". Those you are calling "dead" are advocating the "aggressive but tight" strategy that the best poker players use to win. IOW, be =accurate=, not merely aggressive.

[ochinko]

Ok, everyone will agree that the higher the bid, the more precise it should be.

From 0 to 11 we have 12 possible states for the variable "hcp". If we compress the meanings 0-7 in 1♠, and 8-11 in 2♠, our 2♠ bid has twice the precision of 1♠ (8:4 states). This looks beautiful to me, and makes the principle easy to remember.

If we make it 10:2 (0-9 vs. 10-11) our 2♠ bid doubles its precision, but 1♠ becomes sort of a useless bid by trying to encompass most of the hands that we'll get. A ratio of 5 between the two bids is unproportional and ugly.

And I know it's not all in the points, but these are good points, people. The fact that I have an Ace and a King is more important than the fact that I have two Jacks. And these are both good, working Jacks, the one is in the trumps, and the other one sits by a King instead of all alone in a suit.

[foo]

ochinko, on Jul 3 2007, 08:45 AM, said:

Ok, everyone will agree that the higher the bid, the more precise it should be.

From 0 to 11 we have 12 possible states for the variable "hcp". If we compress the meanings 0-7 in 1♠, and 8-11 in 2♠, our 2♠ bid has twice the precision of 1♠ (8:4). This looks beautiful to me, and makes the principle easy to remember.

If we make it 10:2 (0-9 vs. 10-11) our 2♠ bid doubles its precision, but 1♠ becomes sort of a useless bid by trying to encompass most of the hands that we'll get. A ratio of 5 between the two bids is unproportional and ugly.

And I know it's not all in the points, but these are good points, people. The fact that I have an Ace and a King is more important that the fact that I have two Jacks. And these are both good, working Jacks, the one is in the trumps, and the other one sits by a King instead of all alone in a suit.

You are still having to bid opposite what usually evaluates to a minimum opening bid.

Would you make an Invite w/ Jxxx ATx xxx KJx opposite a opening bid?
I bet not.

I'm all for esthetics in Bridge, but logic and probability trumps everything else.
Inviting game on random 9 counts opposite a traditional opening is anti-percentage and will get you bad scores. Same here.

...and Jxxx ATx xxx KJx does not even evaluate to the playing strength of the average 9 count!
K&R evaluation= 7.7
Danny Kleinman= 8


These aren't bad or the greatest points, but what really kills the OP hand is the 4333 shape.
The OP hand is a =minimum= in terms of playing strength. It should be bid that way.

[Codo]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 08:48 PM, said:

Thanks at least one did answer.
As you may noticed, your way of bidding is not too common everywhere (But the most spread I know).
There are some countries/schools who prefer a different approach, like defining 2 Spade as 8-10 HCPS with a 4 card suit. But okay, lets look at the pros for your american approach:

Quote

A T/O X is supposed to be a hand that =at the least= evaluates to a minimum opening bid in support of what ever suit Advancer chooses.  Just as an overcall is supposed to evaluate to the playing strength of at least a minimum opening bid.

Okay, so opposite a hand with about 10 HCP and the perfect 4144 (which is more or less a minimum for the double) you play 2 Spade with 18-21 combined HCP in your 4-4 Fit. Sounds like perfect with our solution. And you had made it much more difficult for your opponents to compete then you did with your 1 Spade bid.

If the double has a stronger hand, it is much easier for him to evalute your prospects opposite a narrow defined positive response like 8-10.
Two upsides for "our" approach.

Quote

The reason a minimum Advance of a T/O shows ~0-9 is that a minimum response to an opening bid shows ~6-9 and in addition you must allow Advancer to bid with 0-5 because the T/O Doubler has forced Advancer to bid (except in the rare cases where Advancer will make a penalty pass.)

Okay, so the reason is: If I bid 1 Spade, my Pd raises one level to 2 Spade with 6-9. To make life easy for him, I will play that after a double he should do the same and raise my promised suit just one level too?
Funny, I think it would be much easier to remember to bid 2 Spade with 6-9, so that the same bid carries the same meaning.

But okay, anybody who thinks that the approach with 0-7 and 8-10 is too complicated may stick to the old rules.

Quote

Think of a T/O X as a way to "open" the bidding for the overcalling side just as an overcall does.

Yes and as I am able to handle different calls from pd with different responses, I have a set of rules how to respond to the X. They are not the same rules as if I answer to a bid of 1 in a major or 1 NT or a jump. And I do belive that this is common practice in the bidding systems from Lawrence, Hardy et al too.

Quote

The ranges used here have nothing to do with "fashion" and everything to do with logic.  Culbertson and Goren used the same ranges that Miles, Lawrence, Hardy, Grant, etc etc do now.  Because the range is dictated by the cards.  Not fashion.

The logic you presented was: A minimum response shows 6-9 HCPs. Okay, stick to this.
This logic is nice but (in my view) simple silly. You cannot use the same point range for different bidding situations. If you do, you make your bridge much simpler, which has some value. But you make it less accurate too.

With you wish to bid all 0-9 HCPs hand with 1 Spade you make your life much more difficult later. Some posters wanted to show later that they have a nice hand for there weak bid. I prefer to bid this hand in one bid, not in two.

I accept that much better players then me had won numerous Bermuda Bowls with this approach.
(But maybe they had even won more with another? )

I agree with ochinko in his reasoning about the profite of the french approach. But go ahead and win your tournaments despite your worse bidding.

[Fluffy]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

Would you make an Invite w/ Jxxx ATx xxx KJx opposite a opening bid?
I bet not.

It doesn't mean anything, range is just different, people play it 8-11, not 10-11.
They said it like 5 times already.

[awm]

I've always defined the jump response as showing about 9-11, or 8 with a five-card suit. Several reasons for this:

(1) Double doesn't absolutely promise four-card support for the unbid major. Usually I prefer to stay low on my 4-3 fits when possible.

(2) Partner will always move over my one-level bid with 16 hcp or equivalent -- people disagree about "courtesy raises" but I think a raise on something like AQxx xx KQJx Axx is pretty obvious (and hey look, opposite our example hand 4♠ still might lose one trick in each suit!). So there's not much chance to miss a game.

(3) I think KQxx x Axxx Axxx is a full trick better than a minimum takeout double, and I think partner should be able to bid game opposite a 2♠ jump on such a hand. I feel the same way about AQxx xx KQJx Axx or even KQxx xx KQJx Axx. All are six loser hands with more or less working values.

(4) I'd like to avoid the three-level wherever possible. 3♠-1 is a silly score. So I'd like opener to usually be able to either pass or bid game over a 2♠ jump, with re-invites few and far between. On the other hand, I don't want to be forced into game on 11 points, so I can't play the jump as 8-10 (no I don't want to play 3♠ as four-plus spades and 11-12).

[foo]

Folks, I've been trying to post the standards players like The Dallas Aces, The Blue team, and many present WC pairs use. I am not advocating my own "custom" methods.

I have also been trying to focus the discussion more on =playing strength= and less on HCP. Tricks, not HCP, win boards. Phrases like "0-9 for a minimum" are =at best= approximations to the real evaluation that takes place.

(1H)-X-pa-??

You hold: Qxxxx.(x.Kxxx.Axx)

Here's three 9 counts I want to be in 4♠ on opposite just about any sane T/O of (1H). I have 7 losers opposite another 7 loser hand + a nine card trump fit + a likely 8+ card side fit. This hand's playing strength is !not! that of the average 9 count given this auction.

Likewise, I would GF with Qxxx.xxx.KQx.KQx due to the purity of my hand and value location,
but I would only invite with Qxxx.KQx.(xxx.KQx)
Despite the fact that all three hands evaluate to ~10 playing points.