[m1cha]

---

The above came up during a local tournament yesterday, matchpoints, if it matters. The system is close to SAYC: 1NT by East is non-forcing (up to 10 total points), 2♣ promises at least 4 cards in ♣ in a wide range of up to 19 total points. According to theory East should keep the bidding open with most hands because West can still be very strong. So what is your plan with the East hand?

I am aware this looks like a question to beginners but it is not meant to be. I am not interested in the official system bid, which I know. Rather I would like to hear your experience with this sequence, and what you think your system bid should be.

I am going to post the West hand later, probably tomorrow.

Edit: The full board is now shown in post #14.

[mgoetze]

Yeah, sure, in theory West could have that many points, in practice 2♣ is going to be our best spot rather often. If we bid with this hand then partner won't be able to trust our bids in the more common cases where he has 15 and we have 10. If this bothers you, there are solutions available - Gazilli, Precision, etc.

[Mbodell]

You might want to consider 2♠ as an option in the poll. A lot of people would play that as the strongest club raise. I don't think it is appropriate with this hand, but it is on the list. If you play that 2♠ thus shows a good 9-10 point club raise, then raising to 3♣ on this particular hand directly as a 7+ - 9- hand seems ok. Pass also seems ok.

[m1cha]

@mgoetze: Thanks! Yes, it does bother me, and I found someone who is likely to try Gazzilli with me.

@Mbodell: I see. I wondered what might happen to the poll if I edit it while some people have already voted, but it worked.

[awm]

My partner Sam Ieong did some simulations on this sort of hand. It turns out that 2M is a better partial than 3m despite missing the 4-4 fit to play a 5-2. This is especially true at MP of course, but even at IMPs being a level lower and the "win one" when both contracts make three seems to add up.

So 2H it is!

[Trump Echo]

In the system my partner and I share, East would plan from the start to support the Hearts. His first call is 1 NT, forcing, and his second call is 2 Hearts, showing either full support and a weak hand, or light support and a slightly better hand.

East's bid is 2 Hearts.

[daffydoc]

if we belong higher pard will take us there with full cooperation from me - two level is plenty until pard bids again and pass is way too unilateral( pass and u better be right 100% of the time or u will be looking for a new pard) daffydoc

[m1cha]

awm, on 2015-March-10, 22:32, said:

My partner Sam Ieong did some simulations on this sort of hand. It turns out that 2M is a better partial than 3m despite missing the 4-4 fit to play a 5-2. This is especially true at MP of course, but even at IMPs being a level lower and the "win one" when both contracts make three seems to add up.

Good point!

Was passing an option? Because with this distribution opposite a weak hand, 2♣ might make while 2♥ and 3♣ fail, giving the ♣ suit an edge.

Trump Echo, on 2015-March-11, 05:12, said:

In the system my partner and I share, East would plan from the start to support the Hearts. His first call is 1 NT, forcing, and his second call is 2 Hearts, showing either full support and a weak hand, or light support and a slightly better hand.

I see. With this hand it would work similar in 2/1. 1NT forcing, 2♣ rebid just promises 3 ♣s, so there is no reasonable alternative to 2♥.

Just because I'm curious, in your system 1♥ - 2♥ is the real minimum support, or is it stronger than the way over 1NT?

[m1cha]

daffydoc, on 2015-March-11, 05:54, said:

if we belong higher pard will take us there with full cooperation from me - two level is plenty until pard bids again and pass is way too unilateral( pass and u better be right 100% of the time or u will be looking for a new pard)

Well, I might appreciate that move by partner, who knows. Particularly if I am expected to be 100 % right with anything in Bridge.

Having the system bid against me can be nasty, I agree.

On the other hand, I checked some statistics before starting this topic. The thing is, a random hand contains 16 - 18 HCP 7.28 % of the time. Assuming 17 - 19 total points, that's what opener can have to justify going for a full game opposite my hand. 11 - 13 HCP (12 - 14 total points) occur 23.44 % of the time. That's most of the hands where passing is the only chance to score positive. The percentages are low because I didn't bother to remove the hands below opening strength. But even if if you take this into account, the fact remains that the weak hands outweigh the strong ones in a relation of 3:1. And while in IMPs you may want to keep game open even if the frequency is against you, I'm pretty sure this will not pay off in MPs - asssuming 2♣ is what I can actually play.

What bothers me more is that opponents may not let us play in 2♣. With 2 suits open on the 2 level, they may reopen the bidding and make 2♠ based on an 8-card or even 9-card fit. By bidding 2♥, removing their ♦ option, I may be keeping them out.

[nekthen]

Seems like what we are saying is 1♥ 2♥ weak with 3 or 4 card support
1♥ 1N 2♣ 2♥ is two card support and why not?

[helene_t]

In SAYC (and most other natural systems including acol and SEF) 2c has an upper limit of appr. 17-18 so you can pass with 6-7. With this hand, it is better to keep the auction alive. Fortunately you have an artificial 2S to show a good club raise so 3c is ok but 2H is probably better.

[m1cha]

nekthen, on 2015-March-11, 10:43, said:

Seems like what we are saying is 1♥ 2♥ weak with 3 or 4 card support
1♥ 1N 2♣ 2♥ is two card support and why not?

Maybe I'm mistaken, my impression from TrumpEcho's post was that 1♥ 1N 2♣ 2♥ can include 3-card, perhaps even 4-card support. Then the question would not be "why not" but "why", even though I find nothing wrong with it.

[Jinksy]

At MPs, this seems like a wtp 2♥ to me. At IMPs it's trickier, but with this soft a hand I think I'd bid the same way, since it's probably less encouraging than 3♣ (and there's a decent chance they can cash 5 tricks against us in any contract).

[m1cha]

Thanks a lot to all who have replied so far. Well then, this is the full board:

---

According to the official system description 3♣ shows 8 - 10 (11) points with 4 cards in ♣, so this is probably the system bid. With less points (that is, if you find a reason to downgrade the hand by half a point) you may pass. Alternatively, 2♥ shows 2 cards in ♥ at 6 - 10 (11) points, which sounds good so far, but it is a 'correction bid' suggesting no good fit in the ♣ suit. (There is no artificial 2♠ bid to show ♣ in this system.)

Anyway, at the table I found a number of reasons for bidding 2♥: It shows the strength of the hand well while 3♣ or pass are borderline in strength; it "keeps the bidding open" while staying on the 2 level; and you want to play the majors in matchpoints. So I bid 2♥.

The distribution is not nice for EW. Double dummy analysis shows that the following contracts can be made (with open cards):
1♥ from EW
1NT from EW
2♣ from EW
1♠ from NS

So basically everything beyond 2♣ is down. In practice it's worse because the ♥ suit plays horribly, particularly after ♦7 lead, and it is difficult to restrict it to 2♥-1. Partner has a pretty strong 15 HCP hand, so if you bid 3♣ he may try to lift you in 3NT. Actually nobody in the room played the ♣ suit! But some scored positive at EW by letting NS play 2♠ which works for EW because opps have just a 7-card fit and few points. Only two out of 13 players won their contracts, W2♥= and S2♠= with some help from the respective opps.

Anyway, after seeing this I thought I should rather pass 2♣, but certainly I am biased from the experience of this particular hand.

Now this brings up my second top-level question: How about West pass the 1NT bid?

I mean, clearly the system rebid is 2♣. We are supposed to show the 4-card suit and who knows, we may find a wonderful 6-4 fit. (Why not dream?) But on less wonderful days we may want to play NT anyway; and the 2♣ bid can create a lot of trouble, as we have seen, because it is so inspecific in strength. There is no fit in ♥ or ♠. The shape of the West hand is, well, just okay to me, so NT looks good. 1NT scores as much as 2♣ in MPs and 1NT+1 score more than 2♥= in a 5-2 fit or more than 3♣=. Finally, opps do not intervene over 1NT as easily as they do over 2♣. True, we may want to be in 3NT if partner has 10 HCP but there is no way to find out 'maximum of maximum' in our system. So, why not pass the non-forcing 1NT bid?

If you don't, would you pass 1NT with ♣x instead of ♣Q? Would you pass 1NT in IMPs instead of MPs?

[mgoetze]

m1cha, on 2015-March-11, 17:14, said:

Now this brings up my second top-level question: How about West pass the 1NT bid?

First of all, this depends on your system. If you're playing 2/1 GF, you routinely bid 1NT on 11 HCP balanced hands. Missing 26 HCP games is not winning bridge.

Let's say, however, you are playing light 2/1s so that 1NT will only very rarely have as many as 10 HCP. Even then, at IMPs at least, I would never consider passing with this hand. 5431s typically play better in a suit, and your high number of controls relative to total HCP also suggests a suit contract will be better. You can make 5♣ easily opposite Ax Qx xxxx Qxxxx.

Playing light 2/1s at matchpoints, I suppose you can consider it. It is a swingy action and if your declarer play is above average relative to the field it is unlikely to pay off, but certainly something you could try. I have no experience to share since I have basically never played such light 2/1s.

[m1cha]

mgoetze, on 2015-March-11, 20:07, said:

First of all, this depends on your system. [...]

Thanks for answering again. No, I wasn't thinking of passing a forcing 1NT bid. SAYC-style system with 1NT = 6 - 10 total points (kind of). Forum D, to be precise. Strange to hear from you, you don't play that .

[mgoetze]

m1cha, on 2015-March-11, 21:03, said:

Thanks for answering again. No, I wasn't thinking of passing a forcing 1NT bid. SAYC-style system with 1NT = 6 - 10 total points (kind of). Forum D, to be precise. Strange to hear from you, you don't play that .

Eh... why would I play such an awful system. In my preferred system, incidentally, 1NT is non-forcing but can still contain bad 12 HCP hands (made possible by playing a 14-16 1NT opening which is also superior for other reasons).

Forum D is not really what I meant when I mentioned systems with light 2/1s. A light 2/1 system is one where e.g. 1♥-2♣-2♥ can be passed. In Forum D responder promises a rebid, therefore you will still want to bid 1NT with pretty much all 10s and even some bad 11s. Passing 1NT in such a system carries a non-negligible chance of missing 3NT.

[Phil]

2♥ looks kind of obvious to me.

Especially since partner can have six of them.

[TylerE]

m1cha, on 2015-March-11, 09:22, said:

The thing is, a random hand contains 16 - 18 HCP 7.28 % of the time. 11 - 13 HCP (12 - 14 total points) occur 23.44 % of the time.

Those numbers are *meaningless*. We know a lot more about partner's hand than "random" hand. We know he opened 1♥. We know he DIDN'T open 1NT. We know he's at least 5-4

So, from this, we know the following...

Partner probably isn't 5422 15-17 (Many of these would, or at least IMO should be opened 1NT)
His points are more likely on the lower end of his range - high card expectancy is lower for distributional hands than balanced hands.

[m1cha]

TylerE, on 2015-March-11, 22:24, said:

Partner probably isn't 5422 15-17 (Many of these would, or at least IMO should be opened 1NT)

Ah, good point. I should have mentioned this. In our system, unlike SAYC or 2/1, we don't open 1NT with 5-card majors.