jillybean, on 2021-March-07, 18:32, said:
Thanks for the explanations, so far so good.
I'm not clear on the 2nt rebid, the hand has gone from a "good hand, a K more than minimum" to a terrible hand.
Is there any merit in downgrading openers rebid to 2♠?
In my methods 2♠ does not promise 6♠ and simply says, I have nothing more to tell you about my hand. Or, is protecting the red suit holdings more important if we end up playing in nt?
You misunderstand a very important aspect of collaborative bidding.
In sequences in which we have described our hand within narrow parameters, such as opening 1S and rebidding 2N, partner knows that we have 15-17 and some 5332 shape (maybe 5224 is permitted).
Partner then bids 3S. This is either a choice of games (3N or 4S) or it is a slam try in spades.
As opener, we don’t have to guess.
But we do have to tell partner whether, in the context of having 15-17 5332 we have a ‘good’ hand or a ‘bad’ hand.
Obviously our bad hand is still pretty good, in a vacuum. Anytime we pick up 15 hcp and 5332 we like it. It’s a ‘good’ hand, within the context that so far nobody has bid. Our average hand is some 4432/4333 10 count, after all.
But now that we’ve told partner we hold 15-17 with 5332, and he’s shown a gf balanced hand, or clubs and spades, we can refine our description.
Nothing we say will contradict that we have 15-17 5332. But we can say whether we have a good or poor hand, in context. We cannot show a hand with fewer than 15 hcp! But we can say whether we have a good 15-17 or a bad 15-17.
Compare AQ109x AJx Axx Qx to A7653 KQx KQx Jx
Which do you think is better? Put another way: do you see a difference between these hands such that partner might be better positioned to make an intelligent decision if we were able to give partner a clue?
This is an extremely important point. Those who read a lot of my posts will note that I frequently talk about my hand ‘in context’.
In auctions in which partner is or may be making a slam try, where we have already provided some description of our hand, it is essential to let partner know how good our hand is ‘in the context of what we’ve already described’.
When our hand is clearly better than it might be, we cooperate. When it’s towards the bottom of what we might have, we don’t cooperate. Average hands or better do cooperate, minimums don’t
This theme continues.
Say we’ve cooperated once...but our hand is average, nothing special. Then if partner makes another try below game, we can consider signing off (this isn’t always possible due to the momentum of the auction), making a further move only with a really good hand, in context.
I tend to play with expert partners.
An auction might go
1S. 2D. (Game force)
2S. 3S. (Some slam interest, the 2S bid said very little)
4C. 4D
4H. 4S
P
Look at that: we’ve made 4 slam tries! Yet we’re in 4S
I guarantee that if slam makes, it’s lucky.
We might have
AJxxxx KQx xx Ax opposite Q10x xx AQJxx KJx
The conversation went:
I have 5+ spades and at least 11 hcp
I have 5+ diamonds and enough to force to game
I may have only 5 spades, in which case I don’t have 5332 with values in the unbid suits, and I don’t have 4 hearts
I have real spade support and, since you are unlimited, I am letting you know that I’m not ashamed of my hand
I’m not ashamed either...here’s a club cue
Ok, here’s a diamond cue
Back to you with a heart cue
4S: ok, I’ve heard your bidding. I’ve cooperated, but I don’t have anything extra to tell you about. What do you think?
Pass: I know you have a decent hand, but if you’ve got what we need for slam you’re not bidding 4S.
Returning to your hand: opener has a bad hand within the range of hands shown by 2N. Therefore it is a mistake to tell partner, via a 4C cuebid, that : within the family of hands I’ve described, I think my hand is average or better.
For slam bidding, one should like hands relatively (in context!) rich in aces and kings and poor in queens and jacks
Here, we have 3 Queens and a Jack. We have only 4 controls....it’s hard to get to 15 without 3 controls, so this is just barely over a minimum, and our spade suit sucks. Yes, I see that partner has KQJ, but we’re engaged in a conversation, and he knows what he has. Our job is to describe what we have, and we have a bad trump suit, very soft values and a terrible hand IN CONTEXT.
This principle works in numerous situations. Sometimes it allows one to be very aggressive with weak hands. Say we’ve made a bid that limited our hand to 5-9 hcp.....1S P 2S
Partner makes a game try. If we have a good hand in context we move towards game. If we don’t, we sign off. Sometimes we have the luxury of an in-between bid. 1S. 2S. 3C. 3H
I don’t have a good hand opposite a club game try but have at least an average hand and I’ve got help in hearts, if that interests you.
I’ve gone on at length, not for the first time. Hand evaluation doesn’t happen only when we pick up and sort our cards. It is an ongoing process, and sometimes we learn information that makes us view a once promising hand with caution, and sometimes a once seemingly weak hand becomes huge
In the ACBL Bulletin for Feb, the east hand for their bidding challenge was Qxxx Kxxx xx xxx
Not very promising, right?
I bid it with a partner
1C on my left.
2C michael’s, pass to me
My hand suddenly got much better. Partner has 5-5 or better, and look how my cards fit! AJxxx Axxxx x xx makes game playable and he probably won’t bid game without a little more than this.
I jumped to 2S, invitational to game
As it happened, he had AKJxxx AQJxx Ax void, so exclusion got us very quickly to 7S. I’m sure most players would agree with 2S, so I’m not claiming brilliancy....merely pointing out how context changes valuation.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari