[msjennifer]

helene_t, on 2016-September-08, 02:52, said:

---

On this hand, 3NT happened to be the only making game as spades broke 5-1 and clubs 4-1 while the diamond finesse worked.

I was unsure about what 3♥ instead of 3nt would mean. Suppose East bid 3♥. W obviously bids 3♠. Now, if E bids 3NT, does it show better hearts than the fast 3nt does? Which, if any, of the two sequences is likely to have a fifth spade?

I am interested both in "standard" treatments as well as some more intelligent Zelandakh or Kenrexford-like solutions. I thought that 3♦, the cheapest bid, should be some kind of relay and not show diamond tolerance.

In an ideal World, E is able to say "I have doubt about 3NT, what do you think?". Even better if E can also hint at the club fit but I don't think that is necessary.

It is very uncertain what a 3 H bid by East will be taken as by West.In all probability,most wrests will take it as showing a 5 card Spade suit.He will ask himself.' Why this 3 H bid?" And one cannot blame him for bidding 3S with Axx. Of course East will correct to 3NT ,if he so wishes ,but that is another point for discussion.

[Stefan_O]

msjennifer, on 2016-September-09, 12:39, said:

As regards the 25 percent risk ,which you have mentioned ,I would politely like to differ.If the diamond finesse is off,you will never score more than 8 tricks even if heart Ace is right ,on a certainly expected normal heart lead ,and so the risk is 50 percent not worth taking by our humble methods.To score 9 tricks even if the diamond finesse is off is when the hearts break 6/3 and N holds the Ace when you can duck once,again a very remote possibility.

OK

But the 25% was only referring to your comment I quoted -- I dont think you can disagree with that, if you look again above...
It did not infer your have ~75% of making 3NT -- again -- look again

3NT by East is actually a bit lower than 50%, since with best defence you will sometimes go down even if the diam finesse is on.
With ♦Qxxx in South you only have 8 easy tricks, if they do not play hearts (until North gets to lead).

I just said the contract was "OK", not awesome -- it's also totally OK not to bid it, if you prefer so

[Caitlynne]

The problem here is that East bid EXTREMELY poorly. 3D was the correct rebid. 3NT was not only misguided, but it invoked unilateral decision making opposite a partner whose hand had not yet been fully described.

When opener jump shifts, you give him/her room to clarify WHY he/she has absolutely forced to game. (By the way, while I agree with the 3C bid, opener is dead minimum for it.) In general, responder either rebids his/her suit, shows excess values for game by bidding the 4th suit, raises the second suit with a very strong fit for it, or - most often - simply preferences back to opener's first suit (occasionally even on a singleton!). Responder only occasionally rebids 3NT, which shows constructive and largely soft values including at least a double stopper in the 4th suit. On this auction, a hand like JTxx, AQJ, xx, xxxx would be more like the classic 3NT rebid.

How much easier this scheme works with the actual hands:

1D-1S
3C-3D
3S

Now responder understands - 3 card spade support, about 20 points, primary diamond suit, secondary club suit (3-1-5-4 shape expected) - and can act intelligently and cooperatively as a partnership rather than unilaterally. After opener's 3S rebid, responder can now show the heart value and suggest NT with a 3NT bid.

With opener's hand, I would leave 3NT rest inasmuch as there is really nothing more for opener to show that he/she has not already.

[Stefan_O]

Caitlynne, on 2016-September-09, 14:37, said:

The problem here is that East bid EXTREMELY poorly. 3D was the correct rebid.

Isnt that depending on whether 3C is 100% GF or not?

I posed that question above --- really not sure what the American Standards (SAYC, 2/1) dictate?

[helene_t]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-09, 14:51, said:

Isnt that depending on whether 3C is 100% GF or not?

it is gf

[Stefan_O]

helene_t, on 2016-September-09, 15:01, said:

it is gf

In that case, my vote is definitely on 3NT over 3C, as in: "STOP PD!!! NO MORE!!!"

[rmnka447]

Caitlynne, on 2016-September-09, 14:37, said:

The problem here is that East bid EXTREMELY poorly. 3D was the correct rebid. 3NT was not only misguided, but it invoked unilateral decision making opposite a partner whose hand had not yet been fully described.

When opener jump shifts, you give him/her room to clarify WHY he/she has absolutely forced to game. (By the way, while I agree with the 3C bid, opener is dead minimum for it.) In general, responder either rebids his/her suit, shows excess values for game by bidding the 4th suit, raises the second suit with a very strong fit for it, or - most often - simply preferences back to opener's first suit (occasionally even on a singleton!). Responder only occasionally rebids 3NT, which shows constructive and largely soft values including at least a double stopper in the 4th suit. On this auction, a hand like JTxx, AQJ, xx, xxxx would be more like the classic 3NT rebid.

How much easier this scheme works with the actual hands:

1D-1S
3C-3D
3S

Now responder understands - 3 card spade support, about 20 points, primary diamond suit, secondary club suit (3-1-5-4 shape expected) - and can act intelligently and cooperatively as a partnership rather than unilaterally. After opener's 3S rebid, responder can now show the heart value and suggest NT with a 3NT bid.

With opener's hand, I would leave 3NT rest inasmuch as there is really nothing more for opener to show that he/she has not already.

This comment hits upon a very key point both over reverses and jump shifts that many people miss. With a non-descript hand, it is often right for responder to make the minimum hand rebid and get out of the way of opener, so opener can complete telling the story about their hand. The nature of these strong auctions make it nearly impossible for responder to fully describe his/her hand. So the best option for finding the right spot is to let opener complete clarifying their hand, then have responder cooperate in getting to the right contract.

[Zelandakh]

rmnka447, on 2016-September-10, 00:13, said:

With a non-descript hand, it is often right for responder to make the minimum hand rebid and get out of the way of opener, so opener can complete telling the story about their hand. The nature of these strong auctions make it nearly impossible for responder to fully describe his/her hand. So the best option for finding the right spot is to let opener complete clarifying their hand, then have responder cooperate in getting to the right contract.

I understand the point you are trying to make but a 2♣ opening would be a better second example than a reverse. With the latter the negative rebid, if used, typically does not invite Opener to describe their hand further unless maximum so it is generally better for Responder to steer the auction to the correct area - fit, cog, sign-off, SI, etc - and then hand it back to Opener for any remaining decisions. In that way it is a little like bidding over a 1NT opening.

My preferred methods take this idea to extreme in that the majority of GF auctions are of the one-way (relay) type, so I thoroughly approve of the concept. You just have to be careful of how that implements itself into a natural system - once you have started a natural auction it is rarely correct to revert to relays, although a "mark-time"/grope bid, which acts somewhat like a relay in practice, is often a good idea.

[nullve]

helene_t, on 2016-September-09, 04:13, said:

we are quite happy to rebid 1nt with 1354

Is that because your 1♦ opening is unbalanced?

[msjennifer]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-08, 12:49, said:

Hi Z,

Yes, I know --- I usually dont answer like "if you played this and this...", but in this specific context, I really felt it was worth bringing up.
I just cannot understand why this is not part of the standard system (particularly for 2/1 players).

Sure, that approach has some issues of its own... like responder holding that super-lousy hand where he would pass 2C non-forcing, for one.

But, if we are gonna prioritize finding the right game and slam contracts -- rather than not getting too high in a partscore, or not playing in the wrong partscore -- I certainly find it a superior approach.

All in my opinion, I might emphasize, to steer around any controversies



Yes, you are right, I had no idea --- what a strange world it is

Very few players play 2/1 GF.these days.But we would like to hear more about new suit at 2 level as a one round force and its further developments with various 5/6 HCP hands with responder.I do like ,and certainly may more will,your brand new ideas for improving the" Substandard Standard" system that we play all over the states.

[msjennifer]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-08, 12:49, said:

Hi Z,

Yes, I know --- I usually dont answer like "if you played this and this...", but in this specific context, I really felt it was worth bringing up.
I just cannot understand why this is not part of the standard system (particularly for 2/1 players).

Sure, that approach has some issues of its own... like responder holding that super-lousy hand where he would pass 2C non-forcing, for one.

But, if we are gonna prioritize finding the right game and slam contracts -- rather than not getting too high in a partscore, or not playing in the wrong partscore -- I certainly find it a superior approach.

All in my opinion, I might emphasize, to steer around any controversies



Yes, you are right, I had no idea --- what a strange world it is

We would certainly be eager to know your new idea of playing a new suit at 2 level by opener on his first rebid as one round force.It will be most interesting to know how you develop the bidding further when responder has 5/6 HCP and the opener a bare 5/4 with 11/12 HCPand opponents just keeping quiet white vs red.By the way very few old fashioned players play 2/1 GF these days.Your contributions will be welcome by all those who play the present "substandard standard system" in all states.

[msjennifer]

helene_t, on 2016-September-09, 04:13, said:

So it seems the consensus is that without any sophisticated agreements, E should either take a false preference to diamonds or bid 3♥ "grope", and in either case W would show her spade support after which E can judge to bid 3nt or 5♣. A direct 3nt should show a better heart stopper so this E hand is not suitable.

Maybe 3♦ is safer since 3♥ probably suggests a fifth spade. But I am not comfortable with such a false preference since it may be hard to convince partner not to correct 5♣ to 5♦.

The 3♥ grope has the problem that it is not a generic solution since after
1♥-1♠
3♦-?
the 4th suit is not available below 3nt.

So we should consider something slightly more artificial. The cheapest bid, in this case 3♦, as a grope, should be ok. Responder is captain and should not worry that 5♣ will be corrected to 5♦.

Maybe the best generic solution involves Gazilly. I think we are ok with this, we are quite happy to rebid 1nt with 1354 so we would be able to live without the natural 2♣ rebid I think.

Very well said,Madam.(or is it Miss ?).You have nicely illustrated ,with fitting examples, the difficulty in bidding such hands.Personally,my feeling is that a jump shift in minor suits as in the given hand is a ' slight' overbid but even then with bare kings in the outside two suits a 3 diamond rebid by the responder just says all.

[Stefan_O]

msjennifer, on 2016-September-10, 03:07, said:

Very few players play 2/1 GF these days.

Is that true? In my area, almost nobody ever played it (I think) but I thought it was still on a steady rise in US?

[Stefan_O]

msjennifer, on 2016-September-10, 03:19, said:

how you develop the bidding further when responder has 5/6 HCP and the opener a bare 5/4 with 11/12 HCP

I already mentioned above, with very weak responder hands you may sometimes have issues, of course.

So it's a matter of priorities, pinpointing the partscore contracts, or pinpointing the game/slam contracts.

It's not much different, than when you first tell a player that
"1M-1NT is forcing one round."
"What? But... what if 1NT is our best spot?"
Personally, at least at MP, in practical play, I still feel this is a more valid concern, than 1X-1Y-1Z or 1X-1Y-2Z being forcing.

But, if it's really true what you say... that 2/1 GF is on its way out (never heard that before), I think I'll have to rest my case for now...

[Stefan_O]

Probably, the main upside of 1X-1Y-2Z forcing, is that you can easily show a good 5-5 hand with a jump to 3C.

If you play that jump is GF with 5-4 or better, you can not show your 5-5 below 3NT, potentially (with a better-than-minimum responder) missing a good 6C-slam, etc.
Or, alternatively, "feeling forced" to rebid your second suit at the 4-level, when you should have not.

[nullve]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-10, 06:21, said:

So it's a matter of priorities, pinpointing the partscore contracts, or pinpointing the game/slam contracts.

It's easy to play transfer rebids by Opener over 1♦-1M and 1♥-1♠ if

1♣ = nat. or 12-14 bal. (possibly including 5H(332))
1♦ = nat., but not 12-14 bal.
1♥ = 5+ H (possibly excluding 5H(332)).

Then e.g.

1♦-1♥; ?:

1♠ = 4+ S, NF
1N = 4+ C
2♣ = 6+ D
2♦ = 3c H raise (including 18-19 bal. w/ 3 H)
2♥ = 4c H raise, min
2♠ = 4+ S, GF
2N = 18-19 bal., 2 H
3♣+ = raise structure.

Most of this is well known. But you can also play transfer a similar scheme of transfer rebids over 1♣-1R if in response to 1♣ either

1♦ = 4+ H
1♥ = 4+ S

as in T-Walsh, which isn't GCC legal, or

1♦ = 4+ S, may have longer H unless GF
1♥ = 4+ H, less than 4 S unless GF,

using something very similar to Helene's Spades-Walsh, which is GCC legal. Then e.g.

1♣-1♥(=4+ H); ?:

1♠ = 5+ C, unbal.
1N = 12-14 bal., 2-3 H
2♣ = D reverse
2♦ = 3c H raise (including 18-19 bal. w/ 3 H)
2♥ = 4c H raise, min
2♠ = S reverse
2N = 18-19 bal., 2 H
3♣+ = raise structure

I could have explained all this in much more detail, but this seems to be the wrong thread and forum.

[helene_t]

What about:

3♦: waiting bid denying six spades and denying a double stopper in hearts. Opener will show 3-card support after which responder can show a single heart stopper. With a single heart stopper and/or Hx in spades, opener can rebid 3♥ after which responder can show a hand suitable for a 5-2 fit, or a single heart stopper.

3♥: six+ spades! This gives opener room to make a waiting bid of 3♠ after which responder can show a single heart stopper.

3♠: 5-5 majors!

3NT: double heart stopper.

[Vampyr]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-10, 06:13, said:

Is that true? In my area, almost nobody ever played it (I think) but I thought it was still on a steady rise in US?

Even if it's not on he rise I think that the overwhelming majority of US players. It is becoming popular here too.

The comment that its popularity is waning is not even remotely true.

[Vampyr]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-10, 06:13, said:

Is that true? In my area, almost nobody ever played it (I think) but I thought it was still on a steady rise in US?

Even if it's not on the rise I think that the overwhelming majority of US players. It is becoming popular here too.

The comment that its popularity is waning is not even remotely true.

[jallerton]

helene_t, on 2016-September-09, 04:13, said:

So it seems the consensus is that without any sophisticated agreements, E should either take a false preference to diamonds or bid 3♥ "grope", and in either case W would show her spade support after which E can judge to bid 3nt or 5♣. A direct 3nt should show a better heart stopper so this E hand is not suitable.

Maybe 3♦ is safer since 3♥ probably suggests a fifth spade. But I am not comfortable with such a false preference since it may be hard to convince partner not to correct 5♣ to 5♦.

The 3♥ grope has the problem that it is not a generic solution since after
1♥-1♠
3♦-?
the 4th suit is not available below 3nt.

So we should consider something slightly more artificial. The cheapest bid, in this case 3♦, as a grope, should be ok. Responder is captain and should not worry that 5♣ will be corrected to 5♦.

Maybe the best generic solution involves Gazilly. I think we are ok with this, we are quite happy to rebid 1nt with 1354 so we would be able to live without the natural 2♣ rebid I think.

3♦is Responder's best rebid on the originally quoted hand and this should not lead to a problem if Opener is on the same wavelength. This keeps the auction sufficiently low that Opener's next bid is meaningful: 3♠ with 3-card support, 3NT with a decent heart stop, 4♣ with 5/5; with nothing particular to emphasise Responder can bid fourth suit forcing cheaply. If the auction starts 1♦-1♠-3♣-3♦-4♣, a raise to 5♣ does not invite correction back to diamonds!

Yes, the auction 1♥-1♠-3♦ is notoriously space consuming (even 1♥-1♠-2♦ is awkward), which is why some regular partnerships seek to solve this and other problems by playing a non-natural rebid structure after 1♥-1♠.