[mike777]

Raising a major suit response with 3 cards and a balanced
hand by opener.

I see this all the time with expert players on BBO.

I can think of some hands when this is a winner but why do BBO expert players seem to think this is standard winning bridge? We do have checkback and we do have rebids by responder with 4 card minor suit support over 1nt rebids by opener.

Once the opp start bidding we have no idea if partner has 4 or 3 card support and hurts us in competitive bidding.

[Walddk]

If the balanced hand is suited for a 3-card raise, you should raise. Typically when holding a small doubleton in an unbid suit. This is a classic:

K105
54
A9543
AK4

1♦ - 1♠
2♠

Rebidding 1NT is inferior for two reasons. You may be left to play there when you have a 5-3 spade fit, and even if responder is strong enough to check back for a fit, you are committed to playing NT from the (likely) wrong hand.

If responder is weak and only has four spades, you are normally quite safe playing on a 4-3 fit at the 2-level.

Finally, if responder has at least invitational values after the major suit raise, he can ask for shape and strength by inserting a relay (2NT). Many experts play that after

1x - 1MA
2MA

In other words: you are not committed to playing a game in the major raised. Responder will investigate if he is interested.

Roland

[beatrix45]

As stated by Walddk, the three card raiser should have a working doubleton and three trumps to one or two honors to (we hope) make pulling trumps a possible option. The whole idea is preemption and fast arrival to the eight trick level. Let the opponents make the last guess. In short, you tend not to bid on opposite a possible three card raise, but your loss of comfort here is more than compensated for by the pressure it puts on opponents earlier in the bidding.

Playing 4-3 fits is fun. Don't be faint of heart. Be less aggressive when vulnerable.

[Gerben42]

Quote

You may be left to play there when you have a 5-3 spade fit,

This also depends on your style. My style is that a 1NT rebid shows exactly 2 or 3 spades, not 1. So then partner will often sign off in 2♠ if he has 5.

Wrongsiding may be an issue but you will rarely have a pure suit-oriented hand like the one shown. In many situations you have some suits that you want to have led from your left and some that you want to have led from your right.

Too much fear to bid NT because you then have to play it from your side is also not good. As usual, there are two sides to everything

[bearmum]

Gerben42, on Oct 28 2005, 10:56 PM, said:

Quote

You may be left to play there when you have a 5-3 spade fit,

This also depends on your style. My style is that a 1NT rebid shows exactly 2 or 3 spades, not 1. So then partner will often sign off in 2♠ if he has 5.

Wrongsiding may be an issue but you will rarely have a pure suit-oriented hand like the one shown. In many situations you have some suits that you want to have led from your left and some that you want to have led from your right.

Too much fear to bid NT because you then have to play it from your side is also not good. As usual, there are two sides to everything

WOW I agree Gerben ---- if P has a 5CM I really hope s/he will rebid it

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Oct 28 2005, 09:50 AM, said:

Once the opp start bidding we have no idea if partner has 4 or 3 card support and hurts us in competitive bidding.

Uncertainty is your friend! Learn to embrace the chaos...

In all seriousness, I see comments like this alot. I associate such statements with people who believe that bridge is a two handed game where partners are able to enjoy long delicate uncontested auctions and the opponents are never gauche enough to balance. In reality, bridge bidding is a highly competitive game dominated by a few critical decision points; one of the most important being decisions whether or not to compete at the three level over the opponents 2M contracts.

If your 1m - 1M - 2M raise promise 4 card support, you'll be better position to decided whether or not to bid 3 over 3 if the opponents choose to intervene. However, its crucial to understand that this same "certainty" regarding your eight card fit often created this very problem in the first place. Its much more difficult to balance over 2M if the length of the trump suit is uncertain.

[Fluffy]

When I see someone raising my major with 3 cards I start to think he is not an expert .

BTW: Roland, you don't ever lose your 5-3 fit by rebiding 1NT. Partner knows to rebid his suit .

[mike777]

As I said in my post, I can understand raising on 3 card support at times, especially with 2 small hearts as in Roland's example. But I see them do it almost all the time regardless of their holding in the other major. Man, I must have been really angry last night when I posted this. .

[han]

Both Fluffy's and Roland's replies in this thread seem rather ignorant to me. Roland says it is "right" to raise on 3-card support with K10x xx Axxxx AKx, while Fluffy suggests that someone who raises with 3 is not an expert. Open your eyes! There are world class players (and I mean world class players, not BBO WC) who use either approach, and with succes. Far more important than playing the "right" approach is having a clear agreement about this with partner.

Of course, this question is closely related to whether you often rebid 1NT with a singleton or rebid a minor with 5. I prefer to raise frequently with 3-card support (also with the hand that Roland suggest) and to rebid 1NT with a stiff on some hands. I'll remember not to do this if I ever get to play with Fluffy.

Mike777, you don't seem very tolerant of your pick-up partners.

[Free]

I sometimes support with a 3 card support, but usually I have a singleton somewhere. With doubletons it depends on the quality, but usually I still bid NT since we have tools enough to find out about 5-3 fits.

[tysen2k]

I'm with free on this one. I occasionally raise on 3 cards, but not too often. If I have a 5332 or 4432 shape I almost always rebid NT.

[mikeh]

First of all, Mike, since when does a BBO claim to be 'expert' mean anything? I know, and I suspect we all know, some players in real life who claim expert status on BBO, when by BBO definition they would be stretching to claim advanced.

Secondly, I agree with Hannie that there is no right or wrong on the question of do you raise freely with 3 card support.

I even agree, partly, with Fluffie: some of these players who raise routinely, when the hand will not meet Roland's criteria, are demonstrating their lack of competence.

But OTOH (I am about to attempt to establish a record for the number of players whose name I use in one post) a player like reisig (who is definitely an expert, even tho (because?) he disagrees with me quite often) loves to raise on 3 cards on appropriate hands.

I have had two moderately successful partnerships with Canadian internationlists where we raised on 3 cards: we used checkback mechanisms to explore the degree of fit.

I have had another moderately successful partnership with another Cabadian internationlist in which we cannot raise without 4 card support: in part because of a slam-oriented relay method that we play over the single raise.

Both approaches are entirely playable. Both cause problems on some hands... different problems but problems with about the same level of cost in terms of frequency and impact.

So while I am often very strongly of the view that one approach is better than another (don't get me going on the choice of opening on 4=4 minor hands ), this is an area over which I cannot get too excited (altho I can write a lot )

[MickyB]

I too prefer to rebid 1NT without four card support, at least at IMPs - for it to make more than an IMP difference you need to take two more tricks in 2M than you could have in 1NT. Like Gerben and Fluffy, I've never rea

There's probably more reason to raise 2♠ on three cards than to 2♥ - pard is more likely to have 5, and there are more rebid problems over 1C:1S that might encourage you to bid NT with a singleton.

[MickyB]

mikeh, on Oct 28 2005, 08:58 PM, said:

So while I am often very strongly of the view that one approach is better than another (don't get me going on the choice of opening on 4=4 minor hands )

Wouldn't dream of it. Anyway, it is obvious to open 1♣.

[mike777]

MickyB, on Oct 28 2005, 03:17 PM, said:

mikeh, on Oct 28 2005, 08:58 PM, said:

So while I am often very strongly of the view that one approach is better than another (don't get me going on the choice of opening on 4=4 minor hands )

Wouldn't dream of it. Anyway, it is obvious to open 1♣.

1D has been drilled into me.

But I do not want to upset the Canuks.

[awm]

While I used to be more towards the "only raise with four cards" camp, in recent times I've moved more towards raising on three. The really nice aspect of this is that it allows a 1NT rebid with singleton in partner's suit, which solves a lot of problem shapes. There have been many posts on these forums of "rebid problem" hands where rebidding 1NT on stiff is a perfect solution if that's your agreement.

On the other hand, we could run some simulations here. Seems like the interesting constraints would be:

[1A] Opener has 12-14 high and [3244] shape including a 3-card major.
[2A] Responder has something like 6-9 high including 4 cards in opener's 3-card major.

Question A: What's the expected score if we play 2-major? How about 1NT? Which is better and by how much? What can we observe about hands where one or the other is better (i.e. is 2M better when opener has xx in the doubleton, and 1NT better when opener has Hx)

[1B] Opener has 12-14 hich and [3244] shape including a 2-card major.
[2B] Responder has something like 6-9 high including 5 cards in opener's 2-card major.

Question B: What's the expected score if we play 2-major? How about 1NT? Which is better and by how much? What can we observe about hands where one or the other is better (i.e. is 2M better when responder has a chunky suit, and 1NT better when responder has a weak suit)

If you generally raise with three, you will play a lot of 4-3 fits in [A] and 1NTs in [B]. If you generally don't raise with three, and responder rebids 2M with five, you will play a lot of 1NTs in [A] and 5-2 fits in [B]. So it makes sense to analyze the cost/benefit of this.

Note that on gamegoing hands you can probably sort things out regardless of which style you play (using 2NT relay over major raise, or 2-way checkback, or whatever).

I believe that even if the raise only with 4 / rebid with 5 style is slightly superior on the two questions given, it will work out better to raise with 3 / pass with 5 over 1NT because of the huge advantage on hands with stiff in partner's major, but this too could be simulated.

[mike777]

awm, on Oct 28 2005, 04:56 PM, said:

While I used to be more towards the "only raise with four cards" camp, in recent times I've moved more towards raising on three. The really nice aspect of this is that it allows a 1NT rebid with singleton in partner's suit, which solves a lot of problem shapes. There have been many posts on these forums of "rebid problem" hands where rebidding 1NT on stiff is a perfect solution if that's your agreement.

On the other hand, we could run some simulations here. Seems like the interesting constraints would be:

[1A] Opener has 12-14 high and [3244] shape including a 3-card major.
[2A] Responder has something like 6-9 high including 4 cards in opener's 3-card major.

Question A: What's the expected score if we play 2-major? How about 1NT? Which is better and by how much? What can we observe about hands where one or the other is better (i.e. is 2M better when opener has xx in the doubleton, and 1NT better when opener has Hx)

[1B] Opener has 12-14 hich and [3244] shape including a 2-card major.
[2B] Responder has something like 6-9 high including 5 cards in opener's 2-card major.

Question B: What's the expected score if we play 2-major? How about 1NT? Which is better and by how much? What can we observe about hands where one or the other is better (i.e. is 2M better when responder has a chunky suit, and 1NT better when responder has a weak suit)

If you generally raise with three, you will play a lot of 4-3 fits in [A] and 1NTs in [B]. If you generally don't raise with three, and responder rebids 2M with five, you will play a lot of 1NTs in [A] and 5-2 fits in [B]. So it makes sense to analyze the cost/benefit of this.

Note that on gamegoing hands you can probably sort things out regardless of which style you play (using 2NT relay over major raise, or 2-way checkback, or whatever).

I believe that even if the raise only with 4 / rebid with 5 style is slightly superior on the two questions given, it will work out better to raise with 3 / pass with 5 over 1NT because of the huge advantage on hands with stiff in partner's major, but this too could be simulated.

Interesting and if we change the constraints to opener=11-13 and not 12-14 hands?

[luke warm]

i usually agree 100% with roland and haven't been misled yet... even in this, i doubt i'd go wrong just doing it his way... but i really don't like raising with 3 card support *unless* i have a stiff *and* if i don't have a more descriptive bid... say i'm 3154 and it goes 1d : 1s : now i'd bid 2c.. however, if 3145 (and if i opened 1c ), 1c : 1s : 2s is more palatable

also i agree with others who say that if responder is weak with a 5pcM she should rebid, but that's cause i won't bid 1nt with a stiff in p's suit

[hrothgar]

awm, on Oct 29 2005, 12:56 AM, said:

Question A: What's the expected score if we play 2-major? How about 1NT? Which is better and by how much? What can we observe about hands where one or the other is better (i.e. is 2M better when opener has xx in the doubleton, and 1NT better when opener has Hx)

I think that you're framing the question the wrong way:

Expected value is probably the most reasonable way to calculated gains and loses; however, you can not simply assume that you will always buy the contract in 2M following a single raise:

Many of the gains from the 3 card raise / losses from the 4 card raise occur during competitive auctions. Any analysis that excludes these considerations is more than a bit biased.