[Lovera]

This hand had anything of particolar as shape, not usually, 7-2-2-2 more seen in barrage bidding. Then many posters have choosen 2♦ and the rest 3♦. However this difference ? Probably it is due for a different way to valute hand (i use the Stayman method of valutation with a little difference). Infact let's consider only Milton Work this hand has 14 points than is weak it needing +2 points to be valuted in other level. On the other side it must consider that opps are silent and than we could have more points on our line yet to discover by partner bidding.

[biggerclub]

 Lovera, on 2015-February-26, 11:53, said:

This hand had anything of particolar as shape, not usually, 7-2-2-2 more seen in barrage bidding. Then many On the other side it must consider that opps are silent and than we could have more points on our line yet to discover by partner bidding.

I am willing to allow partner to bid her own hand. Lord knows, she usually does. And more.

[neilkaz]

No aces and a defect for dub KQ. 2♦ for me.

[nige1]

Some partnerships have the understanding that a 3♦ rebid shows up to 18 HCP or a solid suit. For them, 3♦ is virtually forcing.

Other players agree that it shows, typically 14-15 HCP with a long good but not necessarily solid suit. For us, 3♦ is merely invitational. We argue that if partner has a poor hand, then opponents can probably make something and 2♦ is a lower entry level than 3♦. Detractors point out, however, that, when you rebid 3♦ with an aceless hand, then it's hard for partner to judge what to do

Notwithstanding, we're grateful to our expert critics for pointing out the counter-arguments to rebidding 3♦ (which we admit may well be a mistake); but please would they drop the patronising tone

[Free]

 Lovera, on 2015-February-25, 11:06, said:

You, first, have an hand valutable (around) 18 points (!) than an hand not i think with a possible svalutation until minimum hand(=14-16 points) it be inviteing and you must comunicate this force to your partner that has bidden once and had to make a second bidding (you have fear for king of club..). I think it needs to continue with a forcing 3♦, eventually to prepare to get five,bye.

18 points? Preparing to get to 5? Are you kidding me? This hand sure is worth more than 14, but 18 is exaggerated. According to the K-R hand evaluator you get 16.15 and according to DK it's a 14- (more information). And sure, the average hand for partner will have at least 2 Aces and will cover another loser while ♣A will be onside 100% of the time... I think 3NT should be our aim, not 5♦.

Also: calling AKQJT in the same group as KQJT9 is just wrong. They might be (quasi) solid suits, but there's a reason why gambling 3NT is made with AKQ5432 and not with KQJT987. It's called "an entry".


In my initial post I answered very short because I think this is a no-brainer. On average our partner will have around 8-9HCP. If we want him to have ♦A, then he'll probably have some values in ♥ which leaves both black suits open for attack. Even if he has the ♦A, it might be stiff and we'll still need an entry. And if he doesn't have ♦A we lose tempo. Opps can easily have 4 ♠ tricks + ♦A. They could also have just 5 ♣ tricks off the top. They also might just have ♣A offside and ♠A, which destroys our hand completely after a ♠ lead (an aceless dummy with a running suit is quite easily defendable).

So I really don't get why people feel so strong about overbidding this hand. Imo this is a nice hand to start slow, and if partner makes a move we can go all-in with confidence. There's no reason to force things yet. And we can still compete if partner passes 2♦s and opps balance.

[Lovera]

 Free, on 2015-February-28, 01:29, said:

18 points? Preparing to get to 5? Are you kidding me? This hand sure is worth more than 14, but 18 is exaggerated. According to the K-R hand evaluator you get 16.15 and according to DK it's a 14- (more information). And sure, the average hand for partner will have at least 2 Aces and will cover another loser while ♣A will be onside 100% of the time... I think 3NT should be our aim, not 5♦.

Also: calling AKQJT in the same group as KQJT9 is just wrong. They might be (quasi) solid suits, but there's a reason why gambling 3NT is made with AKQ5432 and not with KQJT987. It's called "an entry".


In my initial post I answered very short because I think this is a no-brainer. On average our partner will have around 8-9HCP. If we want him to have ♦A, then he'll probably have some values in ♥ which leaves both black suits open for attack. Even if he has the ♦A, it might be stiff and we'll still need an entry. And if he doesn't have ♦A we lose tempo. Opps can easily have 4 ♠ tricks + ♦A. They could also have just 5 ♣ tricks off the top. They also might just have ♣A offside and ♠A, which destroys our hand completely after a ♠ lead (an aceless dummy with a running suit is quite easily defendable).

So I really don't get why people feel so strong about overbidding this hand. Imo this is a nice hand to start slow, and if partner makes a move we can go all-in with confidence. There's no reason to force things yet. And we can still compete if partner passes 2♦s and opps balance.

The Stayman counting comprends values at shortness and longness in aside suit (Goren) and fourthemore detraction for honors not protected and hand without Aces such as :..2) For every cards more 4th (and so on) in a solid or quasi-solid (AKQxx, KQJ10x, etc.) points 2 (pag.3). The eventually bidding of NT by partner sure that suits unbidding are covered (with A or K).

[johnu]

 Lovera, on 2015-February-28, 02:20, said:

The Stayman counting comprends values at shortness and longness in aside suit (Goren) and fourthemore detraction for honors not protected and hand without Aces such as :..2) For every cards more 4th (and so on) in a solid or quasi-solid (AKQxx, KQJ10x, etc.) points 2 (pag.3). The eventually bidding of NT by partner sure that suits unbidding are covered (with A or K).

If you read it in a book, it must be true.

[Lovera]

 johnu, on 2015-February-28, 12:15, said:

If you read it in a book, it must be true.

The book in question is "THE COMPLETE STAYMAN SYSTEME OF CONTRACT BIDDING" by Samuel S.Stayman (I edition 1957, III edition 1972). About pointing the author said, in chapter I - VALUTATION OF THE HAND that " in spring of 1949, in an article titled "Comparation of vary systems of point counting" we get at the conclusion that a more precise system of valutation of points of high cards was this one: A= 4,5 p., K=3 p., Q=2 p., J=1 p., 10= 0,5 points." Infact we know now that Milton Work (4-3-2-1) is precise for balanced hands but less for the other unbalanced hands where insert Goren scale (void=3 p.,singleton=2 p., doubleton=1 point) helps. It exist other systems of valutation (Four Aces of Dallas have scale 3-2-1-0.5 and older also Bissel points A=3, K=2,Q=1, J and 10=0). If are interested i can indicate the "Tabel of valutation of the hand" from the book.

[MrAce]

I admire the confident that Csaba, Free and others have in themselves about the futile mission of convincing Lovera. But the sooner they realize that Lovera will be the last one to reply, to each and every single logical post, the sooner this painful topic ends imo.

[jogs]

 Lovera, on 2015-February-28, 14:10, said:

The book in question is "THE COMPLETE STAYMAN SYSTEME OF CONTRACT BIDDING" by Samuel S.Stayman (I edition 1957, III edition 1972). About pointing the author said, in chapter I - VALUTATION OF THE HAND that " in spring of 1949, in an article titled "Comparation of vary systems of point counting" we get at the conclusion that a more precise system of valutation of points of high cards was this one: A= 4,5 p., K=3 p., Q=2 p., J=1 p., 10= 0,5 points." In fact we know now that Milton Work (4-3-2-1) is precise for balanced hands but less for the other unbalanced hands where insert Goren scale (void=3 p.,singleton=2 p., doubleton=1 point) helps. It exist other systems of valutation (Four Aces of Dallas have scale 3-2-1-0.5 and older also Bissel points A=3, K=2,Q=1, J and 10=0). If are interested i can indicate the "Tabel of valutation of the hand" from the book.

Precise is a little strong. Adequate for most players. Every valuation system has a high standard deviation of error. Original estimates of value are NOT written in stone. Values are dynamic, not static. As the auction progresses one should constantly revalue the values of the hand. Think in terms of partnership tricks, not points for my hand.

[Free]

 Lovera, on 2015-February-28, 14:10, said:

The book in question is "THE COMPLETE STAYMAN SYSTEME OF CONTRACT BIDDING" by Samuel S.Stayman (I edition 1957, III edition 1972). About pointing the author said, in chapter I - VALUTATION OF THE HAND that " in spring of 1949, in an article titled "Comparation of vary systems of point counting" we get at the conclusion that a more precise system of valutation of points of high cards was this one: A= 4,5 p., K=3 p., Q=2 p., J=1 p., 10= 0,5 points." Infact we know now that Milton Work (4-3-2-1) is precise for balanced hands but less for the other unbalanced hands where insert Goren scale (void=3 p.,singleton=2 p., doubleton=1 point) helps. It exist other systems of valutation (Four Aces of Dallas have scale 3-2-1-0.5 and older also Bissel points A=3, K=2,Q=1, J and 10=0). If are interested i can indicate the "Tabel of valutation of the hand" from the book.

I'm sorry, you're so right. In the 60 year period between the writing of this book and today, bridge hasn't changed at all. There haven't been any new developments about hand evaluation (like counting your points for shortnesses only when there's a fit), everything is still the same. And when a book says it's more accurate, it's definitely true for an eternity. Thanks for this very valuable contribution!

Serious remark: on a point scale of 44+ (the more precise system) obviously you'll have a higher value than a point scale of 40 (HCP). This doesn't mean you can compare them.

[benlessard]

AT MP its an obvious 2D since the odds of going down in 3D/3NT are higher than the odds of missing game/slam after 2D. At imps I would also bid 2D, I expect partner to stretch his raise when he hold Ax in D.

[nige1]

 lmilne, on 2015-January-28, 23:14, said:

Two or three?
What is the smallest change you would have to make to the hand to change you into the other category?

---

 lmilne, on 2015-January-30, 05:14, said:

So far I'm 50/50 with the top players in my country, with two players whose names you would recognize taking opposite sides. Would love to hear your thoughts (and which side you take).

Congratulations, lmilne, on winning the Open Play-off!
Have arguments presented here modified your opinion?

[Lovera]

I've found a closer hand in" Total Bridge " (by B. Romanet pag. 80): W ♠ xx ♥ A 10 x ♦ A x x ♣ A Q 10 9 x N ♠ A K J 10 x x ♥ Q x x ♦ K Q ♣ x x E ♠ Q x x x ♥ J x x x ♦ 10 8 x ♣ x x S ♠ x ♥ K x x ♦ J 9 x x x ♣ K J 8 x (that i refer how is in the book). South contract 2 NT - West opening lead is ♣ 10. "Incert contract, called in a tourney by couples. West that had initially bid 1♣, lead with ♣ 10 won by J in South that lead a little spade to 10 in dummy and Queen in East retourning with its last club covered by 8 and 9."

[MrAce]

 Lovera, on 2015-March-03, 10:03, said:

I've found a closer hand in" Total Bridge " (by B. Romanet pag. 80): W ♠ xx ♥ A 10 x ♦ A x x ♣ A Q 10 9 x N ♠ A K J 10 x x ♥ Q x x ♦ K Q ♣ x x E ♠ Q x x x ♥ J x x x ♦ 10 8 x ♣ x x S ♠ x ♥ K x x ♦ J 9 x x x ♣ K J 8 x (that i refer how is in the book). South contract 2 NT - West opening lead is ♣ 10. "Incert contract, called in a tourney by couples. West that had initially bid 1♣, lead with ♣ 10 won by J in South that lead a little spade to 10 in dummy and Queen in East retourning with its last club covered by 8 and 9."

 MrAce, on 2015-February-28, 17:30, said:

I admire the confident that Csaba, Free and others have in themselves about the futile mission of convincing Lovera. But the sooner they realize that Lovera will be the last one to reply, to each and every single logical post, the sooner this painful topic ends imo.

[Cyberyeti]

3 for me and not close, BUT I play a GF unbalanced 2N rebid which means that I won't have a huge hand for the 3♦ rebid and partner will pass it on many hands where it's right.

[aguahombre]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-March-03, 11:11, said:

3 for me and not close, BUT I play a GF unbalanced 2N rebid which means that I won't have a huge hand for the 3♦ rebid and partner will pass it on many hands where it's right.

I wonder how partner will know to "pass it on many hands where it's right", when apparently this hand is not quite a minimum for your 3♦ rebid, and yet the top end is just below GF. Perhaps "GF" is also reduced; but even if partner knows that, he can't do anything about it.

[Cyberyeti]

 aguahombre, on 2015-March-03, 11:37, said:

I wonder how partner will know to "pass it on many hands where it's right", when apparently this hand is not quite a minimum for your 3♦ rebid, and yet the top end is just below GF. Perhaps "GF" is also reduced; but even if partner knows that, he can't do anything about it.

This hand is closer to maximum than it is to minimum for 3♦ for us, tends to be about 6.75 - 7.75 or bad 8 playing tricks although this a a bad 7.5 tricks due to lack of aces.

We also have other system peculiarities available to deal with some of the other problematic hands.

[helene_t]

That you have a different rebid for the GF hands doesn't really change anything since 3♦ is not forcing in standard methods anyway. Standard bidder will, with a GF hand, fake a reverse or jump shift, or rebid 3NT.

[Cyberyeti]

 helene_t, on 2015-March-03, 13:59, said:

That you have a different rebid for the GF hands doesn't really change anything since 3♦ is not forcing in standard methods anyway. Standard bidder will, with a GF hand, fake a reverse or jump shift, or rebid 3NT.

The standard death hand is often rebid 3♦ for many people, we don't do that, we will not have 8.5 tricks or a decent 8 which some people will.