[Jinksy]

I opted for 2♣ at the table, though still don't have strong feelings.

My objection to 1N is that, while it might not theoretically promise a stop, this being MPs, I don't want the opps to be able to run 5 tricks against us in 1N and then find they have another somewhere if we could make 2♣+1 or 2♠=, esp if P has Kx or similar in Ds.

I dislike pass for the reasons given, but still wonder if it isn't the pro-% MP action, given that a) I think a ♠ contract has highest expectation of the partials, b) if a partial is our limit any bid risks getting us too high or to a worse-scoring denomination and c) by my estimate about 7/8 of the time P will only have as much as 15 points, in which case I don't really want to be in game.

[mike777]

I like 1nt, we have a balanced hand and roughly 6-11 range.


Given I prefer xyz 2c is not an option here and that is ok.

For me 1s does not promise 54 and pard would not by pass a 4 card spade suit on this auction.

The opp may still balance with 2d as both are nv.

The problem hand for opener will be roughly:

AJxx..x...Kxx...AKTxx

2 suited hands with a stiff in the roughly 15-16 area can be tough.

[kenrexford]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-August-26, 14:44, said:

Uh, could you explain to me the deep reasons why playing 1♠ forcing opposite a normal say 6+ or 5+ minimum is unplayable?

If you have to clarify that the bid is forcing opposite a normal minimum, isn't that a concession that the bid is nonforcing, when Responder has an abnormal minimum?

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-August-26, 14:44, said:

Uh, could you explain to me the deep reasons why playing 1♠ forcing opposite a normal say 6+ or 5+ minimum is unplayable?

interesting way of framing the question. Most good players these days don't need 6+ to respond to 1m. Give me Jxxx Kxxxx xx xx and I am not passing partner's 1♣ opening and I wouldn't want to have to bid 2♠ over a 'forcing' 1♠.

On a more theoretical level, system design has to cater to many factors, some of which run contrary to others.

However, a major goal in any system design is to maximize the ability of bidders to limit the strength of the hand early in the auction. Bidding space is another important factor in system design. While preemptive bidding, picture bidding, fast arrival and so on have roles to play, in most straight-forward constructive, natural (i.e. not relay) methods, one wants to combine shape and strength disclosure with keeping the bidding low enough that we can expect to make the contract we reach.

When 1♠ is forcing, opener has conveyed zero information as to his strength (that is, nothing more than the info from having opened in the first place). It is possible, depending on what 2♠ is used for, that opener has refined his shape, but he hasn't refined his strength.

That means that responder, who is going to have as much say in where we end up as does opener, is in the dark despite this being the 2nd round of the auction.

It also means that since he can no longer pass, all of his actions are now less and differently defined than if pass were a systemically permissible call. When I raise 1♠ to 2♠, I am showing values that will permit a game opposite a good non jumpshift black two suiter. When 1♠ is forcing, the lower limit of my hand is lower, and the inferences opener can draw are different.

Once you widen the range that needs to be addressed, one often finds that one strains the meaning of several calls. Thus if my 1N may be on a 5 count, since I can't pass 1♠, then either I lower the high end of that rebid, and thus lower the low end of stronger calls, or I make 1N almost devoid of constructive information.

In turn, this means that opener, who has provided virtually no strength description, has to start refining strength on the 3rd round of bidding, while most of us have already taken steps to do so, even if to a limited degree, on the 2nd round.

I also fail to see any compelling need for 1♠ to be forcing. GF hands, with 9+ blacks, can bid 2♠. Yes, this is space-consuming but it is also narrowly defining, and one can, in a well-designed system, allow for some space consumption if the sequence provides good information at a still-reasonable level. The same is true for strong hands worth a 2N rebid, with a 4 card spade suit and a balanced hand. Bid 2N: surely all good players have excellent methods after a 2N rebid, which may contain spades?

By taking out gf 2-suiters, and balanced 2N rebids from 1♠, we have removed all need to make it forcing. Since we have no gfr hand, and deny a 2N rebid, responder can make a more informed and more informative call at his second turn.


I think it was Woolsey who coined the term 'a zero play' when discussing defence: it refers, iirc, to a play that can never gain, and can sometimes lose, compared to a better play.

Using 1♠ as forcing seems to me to be the equivalent in bidding. It creates losing options for the partnership on some auctions, because not only does it convey little information but it interferes with the information exchange on the next round as well. In addition, there seem to be no problems that require this meaning in order to have a solution. Any space we consume in the standard jumpshift or 2N rebid is made up for by the lack of any further need to 'catch up'. The forcing 1♠ camp has to start limiting strength sometime, and they have less room in which to do it now.


I hope that provides some insight into what I was alluding to in my earlier post.

[Stephen Tu]

mikeh, on 2014-August-26, 15:46, said:

interesting way of framing the question. Most good players these days don't need 6+ to respond to 1m. Give me Jxxx Kxxxx xx xx and I am not passing partner's 1♣ opening and I wouldn't want to have to bid 2♠ over a 'forcing' 1♠.

I guess I don't see much downside of bidding 2 spades here. If partner had a GF hand that in std methods would jump shift, you are getting to game, you weren't passing a std 2♠ jump shift were you? If partner had a minimum hand, it seems unlikely that you'd buy it for 1♠, and would likely get to 2♠ eventually anyway. Now sometimes partner has a medium strength hand, and will bid 3♠ or something like that, and passing would have kept you lower and you avoid going down one. But sometimes when partner bids 3♠ he'll make it anyway.

Generally, I think that the number of hands that pass 1♠ in standard is really low to begin with, so playing 1♠ as forcing isn't going to affect your results very much even if you occasionally get too high on these hands, and this frees up 2♠ to handle other difficult hand types that are handled poorly by standard methods, and the gains using 2♠ artificially could well compensate for occasionally getting too high when partner wanted to pass 1♠ but couldn't. I just don't see how one can rate playing 1♠ forcing as "unplayable". Maybe one could prefer not to play it forcing, but "unplayable" seems like a totally over the top comment.

Quote

However, a major goal in any system design is to maximize the ability of bidders to limit the strength of the hand early in the auction.

Is it really such a massive advantage to limit strength to 12-18 instead of say 12-21? To me if that were so important everyone would be playing strong 1♣ systems.

Quote

Once you widen the range that needs to be addressed, one often finds that one strains the meaning of several calls. Thus if my 1N may be on a 5 count, since I can't pass 1♠, then either I lower the high end of that rebid, and thus lower the low end of stronger calls, or I make 1N almost devoid of constructive information.

Isn't 1nt wide ranging anyway? Are you going to pass 1♠ on doubleton/stiff/void spade very often? If you respond light on a 1552/2542 type of hand I don't see how you are going to avoid having 1nt being wide range.

Quote

I also fail to see any compelling need for 1♠ to be forcing. GF hands, with 9+ blacks, can bid 2♠.

It's to free 2♠ for other uses, like one can use it to cover bridge world death hands, and various heart raises, generally improve auctions with strong one-suited minor by transmitting more information than a 1m-1♥-3m sequence.

If you aren't going to use 2♠ artificially, then sure, there's no great reason to play 1♠ as forcing. But if you have a gadget, I don't think making the ranges for 2♠/1nt/2m be a little wider really hurts you too much.

[monikrazy]

I think the discussion of pass vs 1nt is interesting, assuming opener will always pass 1n or bid 2c with a 6-card suit. I don't think we should be worried about missing game with a 4333 shape and no aces.

Another benefit of passing here is it may encourage ops to balance, and we have the potential to score quite well defending.

[PhantomSac]

I really like bidding 2S here, I think spades will often score better than clubs and I don't want to bid 1N.

[rmnka447]

I'm bidding 1 NT with a pickup partner (i.e. no discussion/understanding of what hands 1 ♠ will be bid on).

Just a thought for the 2 ♠ bidders. Give opener a 4=3=2=4 or 4=2=2=5 hand and 3 rounds of ♦s taps the 4 card ♠ suit. You might still be Ok if ♠ break 3-3. However, against the more likely 4-2 ♠ break, trump control may be lost.

[the hog]

" I also fail to see any compelling need for 1♠ to be forcing. GF hands, with 9+ blacks, can bid 2♠."

They can. They can also choose to play 2S as a mini splinter.

[whereagles]

awkward?? how come? its a no-brainer 1NT...

if the auction promises a 5-4 then 2C is preferable, but other than that...

by the way, 1S can be played as forcing, but in that case it will be anything from a good 11 HCP to a super 21 HCP. I prefer that 1S is 11-17 and 2S 18-21 (and GF)

[mikeh]

rmnka447, on 2014-August-27, 01:13, said:

I'm bidding 1 NT with a pickup partner (i.e. no discussion/understanding of what hands 1 ♠ will be bid on).

Just a thought for the 2 ♠ bidders. Give opener a 4=3=2=4 or 4=2=2=5 hand and 3 rounds of ♦s taps the 4 card ♠ suit. You might still be Ok if ♠ break 3-3. However, against the more likely 4-2 ♠ break, trump control may be lost.

I expect those who bid 2♠ expect partner to at least consider not ruffing the 3rd diamond: whether they did so would be dependent on the exact hand

[msjennifer]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-26, 04:20, said:

But, this is the mirror image of why 2C is appealing. If Opener can rely on a 2C bid with this hand, he will not feel required to bid simply because he's unbalanced, which many styles already promised, and will not therefore bid 2C when a massive misfit is more likely.

I strongly disagree with the two club rebid.Playing with a partner,totally a stranger,I will always rebid 1 NT for the reasons I have already given.While practicing today,I purposely gave my partner a hand AJXx,876,Kxx,KQx.Does not one open One Club ?He was least amused when I purposely bid Two Clubs as defended by You.And if you say that with a 4225 with strength in clubs and spades opener will not bid 2 Clubs on my 1 NT,then well good luck to you and your theories !

[mikeh]

the hog, on 2014-August-27, 03:47, said:

" I also fail to see any compelling need for 1♠ to be forcing. GF hands, with 9+ blacks, can bid 2♠."

They can. They can also choose to play 2S as a mini splinter.

ah, yes....the mini-splinter.....yet another solution in search of a problem Why didn't I think of that, lol.

[kenrexford]

msjennifer, on 2014-August-27, 08:48, said:

I strongly disagree with the two club rebid.Playing with a partner,totally a stranger,I will always rebid 1 NT for the reasons I have already given.While practicing today,I purposely gave my partner a hand AJXx,876,Kxx,KQx.Does not one open One Club ?He was least amused when I purposely bid Two Clubs as defended by You.And if you say that with a 4225 with strength in clubs and spades opener will not bid 2 Clubs on my 1 NT,then well good luck to you and your theories !

Um, I think you are being hostile without actually reading what I have posted. The example hand you gave is ♠AJxx ♥xxx ♦Kxx ♣KQx. Your first question was whether with this hand partner would open 1♣, as if that is debatable. Obviously, this is a classic 1♣ opening.

You then fail to realize that I stated very clearly that there are different theories on rebid. If the rebid style is "always introduce spades," then obviously this is a 1♠ rebid hand, and then obviously 2♣ would be idiotic, as I noted implicitly.

However, in another style, which I mentioned as an alternative, you would never rebid 1♠ with this hand, instead opting 1NT. In fact, the only time you would rebid 1♠ is with the 4225 hand you are describing, or 4135, or 4315, or greater imbalance.

This explains the comment I made. If 1♠ already promised at worst 4-3-2-4 or 4-3-2-4, and only then if a serious COV in the black suits, Opener rebidding 2♣ would be insanity, rebidding the same hand twice. Requiring that insanity to get to 1♣ because Responder wants to bid 1NT for no good reason other than that he has a balanced hand would be silly.

If your partner is a random stranger, you cannot assume that he has the unbalanced hand. But, conversely, he will not assume that you assumed unbalanced either. Hence, without discussion, a 1NT rebid by Responder is obvious, and the "insanity" of "rebidding" the same hand with a 2♣ re-rebid is forced by the lack of discussion. If the rebid style is "spades always," then Opener's rebid of 2♣ with a 4225 hand and a COV in the black suits is not redundant, because 1♠ did not show that hand.

Thanks, though, for the wish of good luck!

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on 2014-August-27, 08:58, said:

ah, yes....the mini-splinter.....yet another solution in search of a problem Why didn't I think of that, lol.

Heck, you are also forgetting the mini-mini-splinter of 1♠. If 1♠ is forcing, Opener can play this as artificial. If Responder raises spades, a signoff at 3♥ works. If Responder bids anything else below 2♥, Opener can now support hearts (2♥), thereby showing an 11-12 count with a stiff. Who else can do that?!?!?! Aren't we brilliant!

[Zelandakh]

With a pick-up I am going to rebid 1NT with SAYC, SEF or Forum D agreed or 2♣ with 2/1 or (English) Acol agreed. The most difficult one would be Swiss Acol - I think that probably has to be a 1NT rebid too.

[helene_t]

Why does it matter if we play 2/1 or SAYC/SEF? Do you think 2/1 bidders are more likely to have 4+ clubs on this auction? Btw, wouldn't this sequence show an unbalanced hand in Swiss Acol? It is a weak NT system after all.

[Zelandakh]

Yes, I think 2/1 bidders will usually have an unbalanced hand for 1♠ whereas SAYC, SEF and Forum D are bid up-the-line. Swiss Acol can be done either way and therefore could potentially be a 4=3=3=3 hand. In English Acol you have not only that most (but not all) would not rebid 1♠ with the balanced hand but also the (mild) security of knowing there is a 4th club there should partner happen to be 4=(3-2)=4.

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-28, 04:49, said:

Yes, I think 2/1 bidders will usually have an unbalanced hand for 1♠ whereas SAYC, SEF and Forum D are bid up-the-line.

I don't think there is any difference between SAYC and 2/1 in the meaning of the auction 1♣-Pass-1♥-Pass; 1♠.

If the response would have been 1♦ (instead of 1♥), I would expect a portion of the players to suppress a four card major and rebid 1NT with a balanced hand because they might not have firm agreements whether they play Walsh or not. I would guess that Walsh is more popular among 2/1 players than among SAYC players. That might shift the probability for an unbalanced hand slightly in favor of 2/1, if responder bid 1♦.

But to suppress the spade suit after 1♣-Pass-1♥-Pass; you really need to have a separate, explicit agreement with partner in SAYC and in 2/1.

Rik

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2014-August-28, 05:42, said:

But to suppress the spade suit after 1♣-Pass-1♥-Pass; you really need to have a separate, explicit agreement with partner in SAYC and in 2/1.

Yes, Walsh is not part of SAYC.