[Al_U_Card]

awm, on Apr 12 2006, 03:45 PM, said:

In Josh's example, I don't see why on the second auction, opener's knowledge that partner had some scattered cards convinced him to bid a four-card club suit at the four-level on a potential misfit... whereas on the first hand, when responder wanted to show his extra values he punted 4NT instead of similarly bidding a four-card club suit at the four-level. The two situations really seem kind of similar to me.

In addition, give responder:

x Qxxxx Axxx Qxx

After 2♣-2♦-2♠-3♥-4♣ aren't you sort of stuck? I guess you will bid 4NT and hope the same heart lead doesn't sink you?

My point is just that it feels like someone took a judgement call on each auction that could've been a disaster and could've worked out. On the first auction the choice to bid on over 3NT but not show the 4cm was a disaster; on the second auction the decision to bypass 3NT to show the 4cm worked out... but it didn't have to.

Gee 2C-2H (5+H and 2 controls) 2S 3C (natural!) go from there to 6C easy.

[Al_U_Card]

joshs, on Apr 12 2006, 03:53 PM, said:

Hannie, on Apr 12 2006, 03:38 PM, said:

Joshs, now change the majors and see who has an easier time.

Although the advantage on this hand is obvious, I don't find it convincing enough to say the structure is better.

Ok lets switch the majors:
x AKQxx KQx AKJx
Qxxxx x Axx Qxxx

Standard, with kokish:
2C-2D-2H-2S(forced)-3C-4C-4H(an offer to play, not good enough to bid any higher opposite what may be a 4-5 count)-4N(guessing, not really sure they have a spade control)-5C(3)-6C

2H scattered pos:
2C-2H-3H-3S-4C-4D(likes clubs, says nothing about diamonds)-4N(rkc)-5D(1)-6C

The point is that even here with the majors switched forcing opener to make the most space consuming bid, the auction is more convincing with the scattered positive since the strong hand has more info about the weak hand, and they have an extra level of bidding room since they have promised enough values for 4N.

Gee 2C-2S (5+S and 2 controls) 3H 3NT (natural!) then take a look with 4C and get to the slam.

[Al_U_Card]

x AKQxx AKQx KQx opp Qxxx x Jxxx AJxx

2C 3C (2 controls and a 5+ card minor) 3H 3S (natural with 4) Bid knowing that you have no fit in H and "guaranteed" minor suit fit with some S coverage.

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 13 2006, 10:53 AM, said:

x AKQxx AKQx KQx opp Qxxx x Jxxx AJxx

2C 3C (2 controls and a 5+ card minor) 3H 3S (natural with 4) Bid knowing that you have no fit in H and "guaranteed" minor suit fit with some S coverage.

I must be confused: 2♣ 3♣ showing WHICH 5 card minor... I don't see ANY 5 card suit

[joshs]

mikeh, on Apr 13 2006, 10:17 AM, said:

joshs, on Apr 12 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

Why is 2C-2H-2N wide ranging a problem when you are in a force to 4N? In fact you have extra toys available here as 3N is forcing, so its easy to find the 4-4 minor suit fits.

Playing 3N as forcing requires far more than flipping the 2♦/2♥ response structure. For many, 2♦ positive merely shows and Ace or a King: responder need have no more than that. So if you make 2♥ the positive waiting bid and then make opener's 2N create a force to 4 major (ok) or 4N, then you have to change the minimum requirement for responder's positive. A method that forces the partnership to 4N on balanced 3 counts opposite balanced 22 counts is unplayable.

This means that 2♥ has to be a good 6 count or better. Now your 2♦ 'bust' can be 0-6 and can include an Ace!

One of the advantages of playing that the immediate negative denies a control is that opener, with exceptionally powerful hands, can immediately stop worrying about missing a slam, because he knows immediately that the partnership lacks the requisite controls. If the negative response can have controls, this information is lost, and the partnership must adjust its bidding to take this into account.

There are other consequences, but any interest I had in considering 2♥ as a positive wait has evaporated if the method prohibits us from playing 3N on 2 balanced hands.

I was never discussing switching the 2D (pos) and 2H(xx neg). I was discussing switching the 2N(Balanced 8+) with the 2H(8+ with hearts) from the standard 2C responses except that since 2H is relatively a cheap bid, I have some suit quality requirements for suit positives, so some unbalanced hands go into the 2H bid as well.

I usually require 2/3 top honors for a 5 card suit positive, but only about KJxxxx or QJTxxx for a 6 card suit positive assuming you have sufficient other values. Some people require stronger suits than I do for the non-2H positives.

Essentially, the 2H double negative is "I have a hand that is probably worthless for slam", and the 2D bid is everything else while in my treament the 2H scattered positive is "I have a sound slam invite" and the 2D bid is "we probably only have game, but who knows".

When I first started playing this way I required only 6 points for the 2H bid, but my experiance has been that rasing that requirement to genuine 4N values works better, so in general I require 8 points or an A and a K (hence the 2D bid has at most 2 controls in it). Since I have mostly been playing strong clubs in recent years (except with Marc Umeno who makes me play the stupid 2H double negative) I don't have a lot of recent experience here, so I can easily be convinced that the optimal point count is a point lighter or stronger than what I play.

Note: I have always played very strong 2C bids. These are virtually all game forcing except for the hands that rebid 2N. If you play lighter 2C bids, then your objectives are different. My objectives are:
a. the correct strain
b. do we belong in slam?
Others have to worry about
c. do we belong in game
and that makes the 2C structure much harder to handle.

The 2H double negative, by killing the kokish sequence, torpedos a.

[inquiry]

joshs, on Apr 13 2006, 11:27 AM, said:

Note: I have always played very strong 2C bids. These are virtually all game forcing except for the hands that rebid 2N. If you play lighter 2C bids, then your objectives are different. My objectives are:
a. the correct strain
b. do we belong in slam?
Others have to worry about
c. do we belong in game
and that makes the 2C structure much harder to handle.

The 2H double negative, by killing the kokish sequence, torpedos a.

You must very seldom open 2♣ other than with balanced 22+, if all unbalanced hands have to be game force. One can save 2♣ for true game force, or follow the French lead of using 2♣ and 2♦ for strong hands, one game force, the other suggesting near game force.

But what it he largest advantage of systems like precision? Anyone who says they start their strong auctions one level lower (in 1♣ rather than 2♣) doesn't understand. The largest advantage is that all their bids other than 1♣ are strictly limited. This helps with all the auctions that do not begin with 1♣. Using GF as your mantra for 2♣ opening bids, no doubt, solves the problems of reaching game. But at a tremendous cost, at least in my opinion, on making your one bids a total mess, and you can forget about adding light opening bids to your system, as the range from minimum (normal opening) to just short of true-game force is already too wide to unravel, imagine light opening bids (sub-"normal") upto just short opening bid.


So such an approach (2♣ is either game force or balanced 22-24) is not a reasonable solution, not that having 2♣ unambigiously forcing to game is a bad thing for auctions that start 2♣, but for what it does to the other bids in your system.

Now as for you part "c", do we belong in game. After, 2♣=2♥ (no tricks), opener knows the answer to the "do we belong in game" question, especially if you combine with 2♠ as I disucssed above (1 distirbutional/HQ trick for ♥, no trick for ♠). Certainly the way I play 2♣ structure is not the only way and probalby not even the best way to play 2♣ considered in isolation. But for the way I like to bid (opening bids, hand evaluation, second and third round bidding) it suits me fine. I think if I played 2♣ as absolute game force, I would play old romex control showing responses (the version with 1NT as artificial and 1 round forcing and 2♣ as pure game force), and not pussyfoot around. After all, partner says he has 10 tricks or so, so controls will be a huge help in deciding slam or not.

[joshs]

inquiry, on Apr 13 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

joshs, on Apr 13 2006, 11:27 AM, said:

Note: I have always played very strong 2C bids. These are virtually all game forcing except for the hands that rebid 2N. If you play lighter 2C bids, then your objectives are different. My objectives are:
a. the correct strain
b. do we belong in slam?
Others have to worry about
c. do we belong in game
and that makes the 2C structure much harder to handle.

The 2H double negative, by killing the kokish sequence, torpedos a.

You must very seldom open 2♣ other than with balanced 22+, if all unbalanced hands have to be game force. One can save 2♣ for true game force, or follow the French lead of using 2♣ and 2♦ for strong hands, one game force, the other suggesting near game force.

But what it he largest advantage of systems like precision? Anyone who says they start their strong auctions one level lower (in 1♣ rather than 2♣) doesn't understand. The largest advantage is that all their bids other than 1♣ are strictly limited. This helps with all the auctions that do not begin with 1♣. Using GF as your mantra for 2♣ opening bids, no doubt, solves the problems of reaching game. But at a tremendous cost, at least in my opinion, on making your one bids a total mess, and you can forget about adding light opening bids to your system, as the range from minimum (normal opening) to just short of true-game force is already too wide to unravel, imagine light opening bids (sub-"normal") upto just short opening bid.


So such an approach (2♣ is either game force or balanced 22-24) is not a reasonable solution, not that having 2♣ unambigiously forcing to game is a bad thing for auctions that start 2♣, but for what it does to the other bids in your system.

Now as for you part "c", do we belong in game. After, 2♣=2♥ (no tricks), opener knows the answer to the "do we belong in game" question, especially if you combine with 2♠ as I disucssed above (1 distirbutional/HQ trick for ♥, no trick for ♠). Certainly the way I play 2♣ structure is not the only way and probalby not even the best way to play 2♣ considered in isolation. But for the way I like to bid (opening bids, hand evaluation, second and third round bidding) it suits me fine. I think if I played 2♣ as absolute game force, I would play old romex control showing responses (the version with 1NT as artificial and 1 round forcing and 2♣ as pure game force), and not pussyfoot around. After all, partner says he has 10 tricks or so, so controls will be a huge help in deciding slam or not.

Its nice that you feel that way but close to 100% of US experts disagree with you. The 2C opener is not game in hand. But it is forcing to game with very few exceptions (yes, many have one additional exception sequence involving a double negative and a suit bid and rebid).

When people play 2C-2H double negative a new suit by opener is still forcing. This is basic bridge and passing it reflects a lack of understanding of the 2H double negative convention.

Playing precision doesn't solve this problem. If you have AKQxx AKxx x AKx and the auction goes 1C-1D you rebid 2S showing a standard 2C-2D-2S bid. E.G. a game force. Yes the auction could continue 3C(double neg)-3S-P but this is a rare exception sequence, and its really not clear that the gains from having the double negative, makes up from the loss of not being able to bid game or slam in clubs very easily....

Where precision really helps on is the in between hands. AKxxx Axxxx Ax x opposite xx Kxxxx xxx xxx and the like where the standard opening bid would be passed, but you have game (or even slam!) in another suit. And on the hands where responder has not enough for a 2/1 bid, but enough to game force opposite a 16 count. Since a natural and Gfing auction starts lower, more information can be exchanged.