[mcphee]

I have a crock of poor cards really and as stated previous I am unable to permit RHO to get the lead to track a C thorugh my gizzard. My LHO could hold easily 6C AQ and some other random card. I need partner to ahve a good hand to win the race to 9 tricks. If they have that hand they will raise 2N to 3. I consider 2N a no brainer at pairs. Even at imps I am not so sure 3N would be wise even though I have 13. I expect 3N to go down most days if poor partner is not able to raise 2 to 3.

[Walddk]

To all of you who mastermind a 2NT rebid rather than 3NT: do you think he will raise with

Kx
Axx
AJ10xx
xxx

or

Jxx
Axx
AKxxx
xx

Excuse me, but 2NT is bid a you make at the desk or at the keyboard when you get it presented as a problem. At the table you bid a practical 3NT instead of trying to convince yourself that you will make exactly 8 tricks. That's an illusion, and since none of us is a magician, I think it's wiser to stick to bridge.

Roland

[cherdano]

Of course 2NT is the value bid (*), but I mastermind 3N because LHO may not know not to lead a club when that is right, and diamond or spade finesses rate to be on (or the heart ace safely with LHO in case partner has ♥Jxx).

It evidently depends a lot on partner's heart holding and diamond length. Unfortunately, I would guess partner is more likely to hold 4 spades than 5 diamonds.

Arend

(*) Hehe, if you want to argue for downgrading balanced aceless quacks, you can always point at K&R which evaluates this hand at a whopping 10.65.

By the way, would anyone have the guts to pass this hand 1st seat? It must be right on values (if playing a 12-14 1NT rebid), but...

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Feb 10 2006, 03:37 PM, said:

By the way, would anyone have the guts to pass this hand 1st seat? It must be right on values (if playing a 12-14 1NT rebid), but...

... and if playing 12-14 NT. No one, and I repeat no one, would pass a 13 count, and if anyone claims that he/she will, I suggest that they get a new hobby: masterminding. Even Al Roth would open the hand!

As it is here, you have a 13 count opposite an opener. That's game in my book. Just like you would have raised to 3NT (if no 2♥ response to Stayman) if partner had opened a 12-14 NT.

Finally, in club games (and elsewhere too for that matter) I have seen too many examples of horrible overcalls. It wouldn't even surprise me if partner had ♣Q. I prefer to trust my partner, i.e. his opening, rather than the opponents. Frivolous overcalls are common and they should not intimidate you.

Roland

[Chamaco]

Arend said:

Hehe, if you want to argue for downgrading balanced aceless quacks, you can always point at K&R which evaluates this hand at a whopping 10.65.

2 thoughts about this:

1) I have more than once brought up the K&R evaluator for evaluating balanced hand.
Yet I was told more than once that K&R does a decent job for unbalanced hands, but not for unbalanced hands (for which there is apparently a better hand evaluator available, but forgot which one) ....

2) It is different to evaulate this hand without other info, and with additional info...

Here, we know that:
a. opp overcalleed in clubs (so out values in clubs cannot be reall reevaluated, but still, tey do act as stopper)

b. even more important, pard opened. If pard openerd, and we hold all the quacks, he certainly is rich in controls, and many of thses quacks will receive power from the AK of opener, hence they should not be downgraded.

Shortly, had pard not opened, this hand would be poor, but once pard opens, most of the quacks get complemented by his values.

Quote

By the way, would anyone have the guts to pass this hand 1st seat? It must be right on values (if playing a 12-14 1NT rebid), but...

For exactly the above reasons (e.g. in 1st seat we don't know if oard has useful values to complement the quacks), it is more reasonable to pass this hand in 1st seat than downgrading it to a 2NT bid after pard opens....

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with virtually everything Roland says (on this thread, at least!) but I have been known to pass on a 13 count: something like

QJxx
QJxx
K
KJxx

[mikeh]

I rarely disagree with Roland or Frances, so when I find myself doing so, I take a long look at my choice.

On reflection, I may have been overly conservative with my 2N choice, but for a reason that nobody has commented on yet, altho Frances hinted at it.

My initial choice of 2N was based on my belief that it is foolish to consider this hand as worth 13 points. It is clearly not. Furthermore, I am a light opener if I hold 5 controls: I will usually open a hand with AAK, unless my cards are in short suits.

Frances noted that she was a sound opener, and if I knew my partner to be one, I would always have bid 3N. What I missed in my analysis was that partner, by his support double, should have a sound opening bid.

In other words, at least in the way that I play support doubles, partner could and should pass 2♣ even with 3♥ if he is minimum. By doubling, he announces a solid opening hand: a 'good' 13 or more (or equivalent playing values). Thus I reconsider (a luxury denied me at the table, alas) and bid 3N, since I 'know' that the combined assets are worth 24-26 points (I value my hand as about 11.5 - 12, somewhat arbitrarily)

If we play that the support double is mandatory with any hand with 3 card support, I go back to 2N

[luke warm]

i hate disagreeing with roland (and frances) also, but this time i have to... how exactly do we reevaluate a hand if not taking into account the bidding (opps' bidding also)? wouldn't you upgrade the hand if clubs were bid on your right? i would... why not downgrade if on your left?

[Walddk]

luke warm, on Feb 11 2006, 12:55 AM, said:

i hate disagreeing with roland (and frances) also, but this time i have to... how exactly do we reevaluate a hand if not taking into account the bidding (opps' bidding also)? wouldn't you upgrade the hand if clubs were bid on your right? i would... why not downgrade if on your left?

I would usually take that into consideration, but I trust my partner much more than I trust my non vulnerable opponents. In a club game (it was, as stated by Phil) they bid on most anything, so they are not going to talk me out of my vulnerable game when I have a sound opener opposite an opener.

You got a couple of examples where partner would not raise 2NT; therefore, I think the decision is mine, and I will take full responsibility if it's wrong. I have no guarantee that 3NT will make, and I have no guarantee that 2NT will make either.

However, 2NT is a contract I prefer not to be in unless I can take exactly 8 tricks, and I can't see why this would be particularly apparent here. Yes, I would be more confident if RHO had overcalled 2♣, but the fact that LHO did won't give me more sleepless nights.

I have plenty of those as it is, as you know

Roland

[luke warm]

well i do understand the point about not liking 2nt, i don't like it either.. but here i view it as invitational (because of my too-trusting attitude re: the opps)... anyway, at my level of experience i have to have some method of evaluation and that happens to be it at the moment

[Walddk]

luke warm, on Feb 11 2006, 01:16 AM, said:

well i do understand the point about not liking 2nt, i don't like it either.. but here i view it as invitational (because of my too-trusting attitude re: the opps)... anyway, at my level of experience i have to have some method of evaluation and that happens to be it at the moment

Never trust the opponents, is a good motto. They are your enemies at the table, regardless of how nice they are away from it.

Roland

[Blofeld]

Carrying that to an extreme would lead to abolishing takeout doubles, Roland.

A certain amount of trust in the opponents' bids is eminently reasonable. But I agree that a lot is unjustified.

[pclayton]

Walddk, on Feb 10 2006, 06:13 AM, said:

To all of you who mastermind a 2NT rebid rather than 3NT: do you think he will raise with

Kx
Axx
AJ10xx
xxx

or

Jxx
Axx
AKxxx
xx

Excuse me, but 2NT is bid a you make at the desk or at the keyboard when you get it presented as a problem. At the table you bid a practical 3NT instead of trying to convince yourself that you will make exactly 8 tricks. That's an illusion, and since none of us is a magician, I think it's wiser to stick to bridge.

Roland

Roland - these look like carefully chosen 12 counts to me. The first has an optimal heart layout along with 5 likely (but not certain) diamond tricks. The 2nd gives us a very efficient heart stop (Qx opp Jxx).

Move a key jack or queen one way or another and 3N has no play.

I hate characterizing bids as 'masterminds'. I've probably done it in the past here myself, but its the BBF equivalent of flame bait.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Feb 11 2006, 06:10 PM, said:

I hate characterizing bids as 'masterminds'. I've probably done it in the past here myself, but its the BBF equivalent of flame bait.

I would usually agree with that. But when it comes from someone who subsequently claims he never revalues his hands due to opponent's bids, because he does not trust them, I just wouldn't take it seriously.

[han]

At most clubs there are players who often overcall 2C on xxxxx, and those who would never overcall with less than AQ-6th. If this is Phil's regular club then he should have a good idea of whom he is playing against. If this is a player whose 2C bid can be trusted then I'd say that not downgrading is very stubborn. I wonder if Roland would also bid 3NT if he was playing against mikeh, or whether he would feel more comfortable drawing inferences from mikeh's bids (I chose mikeh only because of Roland's respect for him and mikeh's self-characterisation as a somewhat sound bidder).

BTW, the argument that you only want to bid 2NT when you have exactly 8 tricks is nonsense imo. This is MPs, so if you make *less* then 8 tricks then 2NT could be significantly better than 3NT. Also, any time partner has extras you won't be hurt by bidding 2NT. If partner has a lot of extras then you will also benefit by making the value bid instead of overbidding. (I do agree that 2NT is not a desirable contract, I just think that the argument is too simplistic, and it is used a lot)

As for mikeh's comment that the support double should show a sound opening: I think that you should make a support double on any hand that you would normally bid 2H with. It doesn't make sense to me to pass now while you would otherwise bid 2H. I also think that you should make a support double anytime you have x or xx in clubs, especially at matchpoints.

[han]

No one, and I repeat no one, would pass a 13 count

This was a joke.. right?

[jchiu]

Nah, back in my Roth-Stone days, I would regularly pass the problem hand. Especially against declarers who only count out missing HCP for inferences, I would get weird looks when the third straight finesse into me lost

[awm]

One important point that's gone unmentioned is that the overcall seems to mark LHO with virtually all the missing values. This has several interesting effects, for example:

(1) The clubs are likely to act as two stoppers, since RHO probably can't get the lead.
(2) Most finesses are likely on, because the aces/kings in partner's hand are behind LHO's kings/aces.

3NT for me.

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Feb 11 2006, 06:57 PM, said:

I would usually agree with that. But when it comes from someone who subsequently claims he never revalues his hands due to opponent's bids, because he does not trust them, I just wouldn't take it seriously.

I really can't take a person seriously if he even can't be bothered to read (or perhaps not comprehend) the post he is referring to:

"I would usually take that into consideration", I wrote. You turned that upside down as you saw fit by writing: "... who never revalues his hands". It's called garbling quotations which I find unfair (to be diplomatic).

Roland