Help
"Retreat" is not a correct interpetation of either my mood, actions, or intent.
"Clarify" or "try to make sure I'm speaking and being heard accurately" is correct.
You started railing about 1foo;2bar;2foo promising a good suit as a bad way to bid.
You then accused me of being a proponent of that position.
It is not a position I ever stated.
Please stop putting words in my mouth or twisting my statements.
(or gloating that I was not explicit enough for you.)
I in fact happen to agree with you that SA has serious problems if a 1foo-2bar;2foo must promise a good suit. (Perversely there is less problem using this agreement playing 2/1 GF than there is playing SA, but that is a different discussion)
However, I strongly disagree with your notion that there is a "default" or "catchall" auction of 1foo;2bar;2foo playing SA.
There is no "catchall" 2/1 sequence in SA.
That is an agreement usually found in some variations of 2/1 GF, not SA.
In SA, you should always make the best bid you can from the legitimate choices available to you.
In SA, after 1S-2C;??
I am not rebidding 2N with JTxxx.AKx.xxx.KQ. I am rebidding 2S.
I am not rebidding 2S with xxxxx.AKx.JTx.KQ. I am rebidding 2N.
Am I "happy" about either choice? No of course not. Is my choice the best I can do in describing my hand to partner? Yes.
Partnerships can of course make whatever special agreements they wish, but w/o discussion and explicit agreement to the contrary, a SA pair should always be striving to describe their hands as best as they can with the bids available to them.
YMMV.
Some question about sayc 2/1
#42
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,153
- Joined: 2003-May-14
Posted 2006-May-12, 16:11
I am not putting words into your mouth.
Your very first post in this thread, you said:
"Also, I have found it useful to use both 1S-2H;2S and 1S-2H;2N as catchalls.
The difference being the length and quality of the S suit:
1S-2H;2S implies 6+S or a hand where a significant number of my tricks are in S's (Hhhxx for instance)
1S-2H;2N is the catchall for everything else that can't find or afford a more descriptive bid"
So here you called both 2S & 2nt "catchalls". Now you are saying there are no catchalls. First you said that 2M implied a good suit. Now you disavow that statement. If this not a retreat, what is?
Anyway, since rebid 2M doesn't guarantee anything specific, just "least of evils", denying ability to make a more descriptive call, and covers a wide variety of hands, that is a catchall by most people's definition of the term.
There is no rational reason to say that there can be catchalls in 2/1GF but not in SA. It is a stylistic choice which bid to use & exactly which hand types to throw in it. You are using a catchall even if you now refuse to call it a catchall even though you did so earlier.
Of course you should always try to find the most descriptive, highest scoring bid, best choice given the circumstances. But a lot of time that is going to be 2M, and that just denies a bunch of other specific stuff, so it doesn't describe much.
I guess I am done here.
Your very first post in this thread, you said:
"Also, I have found it useful to use both 1S-2H;2S and 1S-2H;2N as catchalls.
The difference being the length and quality of the S suit:
1S-2H;2S implies 6+S or a hand where a significant number of my tricks are in S's (Hhhxx for instance)
1S-2H;2N is the catchall for everything else that can't find or afford a more descriptive bid"
So here you called both 2S & 2nt "catchalls". Now you are saying there are no catchalls. First you said that 2M implied a good suit. Now you disavow that statement. If this not a retreat, what is?
Anyway, since rebid 2M doesn't guarantee anything specific, just "least of evils", denying ability to make a more descriptive call, and covers a wide variety of hands, that is a catchall by most people's definition of the term.
There is no rational reason to say that there can be catchalls in 2/1GF but not in SA. It is a stylistic choice which bid to use & exactly which hand types to throw in it. You are using a catchall even if you now refuse to call it a catchall even though you did so earlier.
Of course you should always try to find the most descriptive, highest scoring bid, best choice given the circumstances. But a lot of time that is going to be 2M, and that just denies a bunch of other specific stuff, so it doesn't describe much.
I guess I am done here.
#43
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,380
- Joined: 2003-September-24
Posted 2006-May-12, 16:54
Stephen Tu, on May 12 2006, 05:11 PM, said:
I am not putting words into your mouth.
Your very first post in this thread, you said:
"Also, I have found it useful to use both 1S-2H;2S and 1S-2H;2N as catchalls.
The difference being the length and quality of the S suit:
1S-2H;2S implies 6+S or a hand where a significant number of my tricks are in S's (Hhhxx for instance)
1S-2H;2N is the catchall for everything else that can't find or afford a more descriptive bid"
So here you called both 2S & 2nt "catchalls". Now you are saying there are no catchalls. First you said that 2M implied a good suit. Now you disavow that statement. If this not a retreat, what is?
Anyway, since rebid 2M doesn't guarantee anything specific, just "least of evils", denying ability to make a more descriptive call, and covers a wide variety of hands, that is a catchall by most people's definition of the term.
There is no rational reason to say that there can be catchalls in 2/1GF but not in SA. It is a stylistic choice which bid to use & exactly which hand types to throw in it. You are using a catchall even if you now refuse to call it a catchall even though you did so earlier.
Of course you should always try to find the most descriptive, highest scoring bid, best choice given the circumstances. But a lot of time that is going to be 2M, and that just denies a bunch of other specific stuff, so it doesn't describe much.
I guess I am done here.
Your very first post in this thread, you said:
"Also, I have found it useful to use both 1S-2H;2S and 1S-2H;2N as catchalls.
The difference being the length and quality of the S suit:
1S-2H;2S implies 6+S or a hand where a significant number of my tricks are in S's (Hhhxx for instance)
1S-2H;2N is the catchall for everything else that can't find or afford a more descriptive bid"
So here you called both 2S & 2nt "catchalls". Now you are saying there are no catchalls. First you said that 2M implied a good suit. Now you disavow that statement. If this not a retreat, what is?
Anyway, since rebid 2M doesn't guarantee anything specific, just "least of evils", denying ability to make a more descriptive call, and covers a wide variety of hands, that is a catchall by most people's definition of the term.
There is no rational reason to say that there can be catchalls in 2/1GF but not in SA. It is a stylistic choice which bid to use & exactly which hand types to throw in it. You are using a catchall even if you now refuse to call it a catchall even though you did so earlier.
Of course you should always try to find the most descriptive, highest scoring bid, best choice given the circumstances. But a lot of time that is going to be 2M, and that just denies a bunch of other specific stuff, so it doesn't describe much.
I guess I am done here.
I have already said that my original posts were not as clear as they should have been and apologized for it as well as hopefully clarified my original statement.
That is not retreating from my position. That is apologizing for presenting my position in a muddled way. If you actually need or want some sort of a "retreat", or some sort of groveling, in order to make yourself feel better in some way; I am afraid you are going to have to look elsewhere for such ego gratification.
It is, of course, impossible for two bids to both be "catchalls": either all things that do not have an assigned place go into one bucket or there are still multiple buckets to choose from. 2 bids, two buckets. 1 bid for everything left over, a catchall.
The intent was to point out that in SA there are many hands that must choose between these two buckets that are not even close to perfect for either one.
The use of the word "catchall" when talking about two different bids was not precise enough on my part, and for that imprecision in use of language I also apologize.
As for you "being done here": Not unless you want to be.
I fully intend to answer your questions / address your issues with regards to 1foo-2bar;2N being able to show either a minimum or a maximum hand; the "split range" as commonly called.
And any other SA 2/1 issues you care to raise.
However, there is no point in taking any chances of muddying the discussion by pursuing multiple discussion topics in parallel when dealing with someone who is evidently looking for an excuse to be hostile. Therefore I am not doing so with you.
Once you and I are done with this specific point on SA, then if you wish I will handle the next one on your list and I will continue to deal with them in order one at a time until you are satisfied that I have addressed all of your concerns in these matters.
I want you to be very sure that I have not and will not in any way "retreat" from you or your posts.