[thepossum]

Hi all

This may not seem the most exciting hand but it is one that often throws up question marks in GiB 2/1 in terms of valuation and choice of a few bids.

Nice and simple, not much to it but, would you value this for a 2S,3S or forcing 1NT

In terms of points its on the border between 2S and 3S. 3S promises 4+ spades so was ruled out. My personal valuation would have been to bid 3S immediately but ended up bidding the dreaded forcing 1NT which only promises 3+ spades (despite having an 8 card fit). It all worked out, but why waste time messing around with 1NT

I don't know what happens if you undervalue it at a 2S bid. I havent tested that

---

[smerriman]

You answered your main question yourself. 3♠ shows an invitational hand with 4 spades, so the reason you 'mess around with 1nt' is to tell partner you have an invitational hand with only 3 spades. Opener knowing whether you have 3 or 4 makes a huge difference in them being able to determine whether to accept or not.

This hand is perfect for such a 3 card raise, so 1NT.

[thepossum]

Thx Stephen

Its definitely not one for 2S because that's where North left some people, despite having a very nice hand.

3S did get to game as does 1NT. I still occasionally debate over the choices available and the 10 HCP boundary, if that is the only criteria people use

It had an interesting range of scores from game to game-2 with various part scores in between. Some would say that is a borderline hand - but for me especially at IMPs you dont want to miss it

EDIT I did just test what happens with 2S and depite North having a nice hand it was passed

[akwoo]

1N followed by 3M is the systemic method for showing a 3 card limit raise in 2/1.

No, 2/1 is not a totally natural system.

[DavidKok]

 thepossum, on 2020-September-14, 19:10, said:

3S did get to game as does 1NT. I still occasionally debate over the choices available and the 10 HCP boundary, if that is the only criteria people use

Points schmoints, with a fit for partner's major the losing trick count is at least as accurate. 1NT followed by a 3M raise normally shows 10-11 with a 3-card, but I'd be more than happy call it "8 losers" instead. If you happen to have as little as 8 or as many as 12 points, so be it.
Of course no single count or rule is going to be a substitute for good judgment. If you treat that sequence as "any limit raise with 3-card support" you'll do just fine (and leave what exactly constitutes a limit raise to your own judgment/partnership agreement).

As an aside, if your 1NT is semiforcing and partner passes, 1NT may well be a better contract than 3M (though not 2M) opposite a minimal limit raise (an 'upgraded' 8-count, for example) with only 3 trumps. This is a rare situation where the semiforcing NT (instead of NF NT) is actually an asset rather than downside.

[hrothgar]

I would probably treat this as a three card limit raise and bid 1N followed by 3!S

[nige1]

ThePossum"This may not seem the most exciting hand but it is one that often throws up question marks in GiB 2/1 in terms of valuation and choice of a few bids. Nice and simple, not much to it but, would you value this for a 2S,3S or forcing 1NTIn terms of points its on the border between 2S and 3S. 3S promises 4+ spades so was ruled out. My personal valuation would have been to bid 3S immediately but ended up bidding the dreaded forcing 1NT which only promises 3+ spades (despite having an 8-card fit). It all worked out, but why waste time messing around with 1NTI don't know what happens if you undervalue it at a 2S bid. I haven't tested that."
+++++++++++++++++++++
INT seems best if you play a forcing notrump; but I don't. Without any special gadget, I rank
1. 2♠ = NAT Underbid.
2. 1N = NAT N/F.
3. 3♠ = INV Limit raise. Overbid and you owe partner a trump.

---

[wuudturner]

I don't even see this as close.

There is a HUGE difference in how well a hand will play in an 8 card trump fir versus a 9 card fit. Do not lie and bid 3S, as that shows 4 cards. You have the values for a limit raise, but not the trump.

Is this just a simple raise to 2♠? Consider the same hand, but swapping a 10 for the ace.

T94
54
K763
QJ63

This hand would raise to 2♠. The hand with an ace in it is worth far more.

That leaves the 2/1 sequence: 1♠-1NT(forcing)-2x-3♠. It shows around 11 points, 3 card support, and invites game. What do you have? 10 HCP, a side suit doubleton. An ace in the trump suit, thus a good card. Your other honors are in long suits (such as you have) and the QJ combine a bit, improving each other. That is, while a queen and a jack in isolated suits are worth a little less than their normal value, together they reinforce each other.

In bridge, every bid you make is a compromise of some sort. You search for the least lie, the bid that comes closest to describing your hand. Since you are playing with the bots, then you are playing GIB 2/1. Here that means 1NT, followed by a raise to 3♠. I'd not even call that bid a lie here.

[thepossum]

 DavidKok, on 2020-September-15, 01:34, said:

Points schmoints, with a fit for partner's major the losing trick count is at least as accurate. 1NT followed by a 3M raise normally shows 10-11 with a 3-card, but I'd be more than happy call it "8 losers" instead. If you happen to have as little as 8 or as many as 12 points, so be it.
Of course no single count or rule is going to be a substitute for good judgment. If you treat that sequence as "any limit raise with 3-card support" you'll do just fine (and leave what exactly constitutes a limit raise to your own judgment/partnership agreement).

As an aside, if your 1NT is semiforcing and partner passes, 1NT may well be a better contract than 3M (though not 2M) opposite a minimal limit raise (an 'upgraded' 8-count, for example) with only 3 trumps. This is a rare situation where the semiforcing NT (instead of NF NT) is actually an asset rather than downside.

I didn't tell you my method for judging bids did I

It's strange. Everyone evaluates it as a 3S response but for some unfathomable reason we need to waste an unnecessary round of bidding to get there, allowing for lack of clarity, interference and something to go wrong

On this hand you may get heart interference from West. If you are lucky partner will bid clubs then you can bid your 3 spades and get to the same game you would by bidding 3S immediately

[mycroft]

No, we evaluate it as a 1NT, then 3♠ response.

Sort of the same way that "oh, if this is a 1NT rebid, why not open it 1NT?" "because it only has 12 high, you have to bid it in two steps.", a "three card limit raise", in most standard 2/1, 5cM systems, is a two-step bid. Bidding it in one step deceives partner as to the strength of your hand.

The difference between 8 and 9 trumps is huge, and can turn a reluctant pass into an acceptance. It can turn a "okay, game but no more" into a "maybe there's 12 tricks". Promising a 9 card fit when you have 8 means you'll be on the wrong end of these, and it won't be partner's fault.

[hrothgar]

 thepossum, on 2020-September-15, 13:17, said:

It's strange. Everyone evaluates it as a 3S response but for some unfathomable reason we need to waste an unnecessary round of bidding to get there, allowing for lack of clarity, interference and something to go wrong

Many people like to be able to differentiate between a three card limit raise and a four card limit raise.
For better or worse, this necessitates using different bidding sequences for the two hand types.
This is part and parcel of playing most 2/1 GF variants including the one that GIB plays.

FWIW, I am perfectly happy to distort my hand in the bidding playing with GIB
This is not a hand where I would chose to do so

This is a very soft limit raise. I prefer not to also overpromise wrt my trump length.

[apollo1201]

 thepossum, on 2020-September-15, 13:17, said:

I didn't tell you my method for judging bids did I

It's strange. Everyone evaluates it as a 3S response but for some unfathomable reason we need to waste an unnecessary round of bidding to get there, allowing for lack of clarity, interference and something to go wrong

It seems you didn’t carefully read what previous posters said😇

This « mess around » is required because knowing if you have a 8 or 9-cd fit is of an extreme help for opener to assess game prospects, or more. Should they need to set up a secondary suit by ruffing in dummy, or should they have AKxxxx and not worry about the trump Q, the combined length of trump suit will often be the key between a cold or good game or slam, and a bad or hopeless one.

As regards risk of interference, it is usually smaller when you have 3-cd. I see 2 reasons for that.

First, your fit is shorter, so opp’s suit is also shorter, so less total tricks and less risk of opps overbidding you, for they would be out of the « LOTT protection ».

Second, you’ll have on average around 2 pts more vs a direct invite w/ 4 trumps, which will also lead to less risk of opps bidding, for they might not have values to overcall.

In all cases, I am not sure that the bot facing you will use the fact that you have 8 or 9 trumps as intelligently as a human.