[pbleighton]

If you play 1D-2C and 1D-2D as GF:

1. What's the best treatment for invitational hands without a 4 card major? If you play 1D-3C as a diamond raise, and 1D-2NT as balanced, what do you do with hands with 6+ clubs?

2. Can one or both contain a 4 card major?

Peter

[Winstonm]

Peter, sorry, but I cannot answer your specific quetions.

Systemically I believe it is silly to try to play 1D-2C as game force unless you want to futher stretch and make 1N forcing in this sequence as well. The entire concept of 2/1 as a game force is predicated on making 1N a catchall forcing bid with weak-to-invitational-strength hands.

Better, IMO, to fall back and play SAYC-style 1D-2C.

I also prefer the concept of reversing your use of 1D-2D with a valid reason.
Using 1D-3C forces us to play either 3m or higher or 3N and we may have a better spot at 2N and we can also use the 2-level for more information.

My solution is this: 1D-2D=limit or better, 1-round force.
Opener resonds: 2N=weak nt shape 12, 13 and may be passed. 3N=NT 17-19. 2H, 2S,= shortness. 3 other minor=game forcing that does not fit other categories. 3m, self raise=weak and no interest in NT or game opposite LR.

I also believe it is right on occasion to bid 1D-2D on 4-card support such as:
xxx, xxx, AQJx, KJx

Therefore, Crisscross, 1D-3C becomes a slam try in the opened minor.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Better, IMO, to fall back and play SAYC-style 1D-2C.

This is what I do when playing 2/1. I am wondering if there is a better way.

Peter

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on May 6 2007, 10:30 AM, said:

Quote

Better, IMO, to fall back and play SAYC-style 1D-2C.

This is what I do when playing 2/1. I am wondering if there is a better way.

Peter

Peter, you may want to look at Mike Lawrence's book on 2/1 - if memory serves me correctly, he talks about 3 different approaches to this sequence.

[BillHiggin]

Pound on this pillow as much as you wish. The best you can do is move the lump somewhere else. One hand type or another will become an issue after a 1♦ opening in 2/1.

With regard to question #2, it will only add to the problem if you allow responder to bypass a four card major with less than game forcing strength. With some complexity, you can deal with either the 2♦ raise or the 2♣ response as invite+ including the possibility of a four card major only if responder has gf values (the complexity is too much for my olds-timers restricted memory since it applies only to these particular auctions).

My choices (subject of course to partners agreement) is single raise as invite+ denying a major, 2♣ as game force possibly with a major and 3♣ as invite only long clubs. I also prefer Walsh responses to 1♣ with a full version of xyz and open 1♣ with equal minors (less than 5-5). Adopting Italian style 5-5-4-2 openings also reduces the occurances of the problem sequences. But, the lump is still there (jumping to 3♣ is not so attractive with 3 card ♦ support and a 6 card ♣ suit).

[Winstonm]

BillHiggin, on May 6 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

Pound on this pillow as much as you wish. The best you can do is move the lump somewhere else. One hand type or another will become an issue after a 1♦ opening in 2/1.

With regard to question #2, it will only add to the problem if you allow responder to bypass a four card major with less than game forcing strength. With some complexity, you can deal with either the 2♦ raise or the 2♣ response as invite+ including the possibility of a four card major only if responder has gf values (the complexity is too much for my olds-timers restricted memory since it applies only to these particular auctions).

My choices (subject of course to partners agreement) is single raise as invite+ denying a major, 2♣ as game force possibly with a major and 3♣ as invite only long clubs. I also prefer Walsh responses to 1♣ with a full version of xyz and open 1♣ with equal minors (less than 5-5). Adopting Italian style 5-5-4-2 openings also reduces the occurances of the problem sequences. But, the lump is still there (jumping to 3♣ is not so attractive with 3 card ♦ support and a 6 card ♣ suit).

Exactly right - you call them lumps - I call them ripples; change one bid and everything else is affected.

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 6 2007, 07:54 AM, said:

If you play 1D-2C and 1D-2D as GF:

1. What's the best treatment for invitational hands without a 4 card major? If you play 1D-3C as a diamond raise, and 1D-2NT as balanced, what do you do with hands with 6+ clubs?

2. Can one or both contain a 4 card major?

Peter

1d=2c game force.
1d=2d=weak, poor shape. 1d=3d=weak, more shape.
1d=2s=invite in D, unbalanced often
1d=3c=game force in D, unbalanced often.


I simply accept them as a system hole.
No good or best bid, only partial solutions.
At the table they seem to be a rare problem.
Active opp bidding make less them of an issue, they rarely pass
If opp do pass I usually just bid 1nt or 2nt, imperfect solution but partnership agreement and understanding.
It helps a bit that 1minor=2nt is a bit better than some play. A hand worth "around" 12-13...excellent 11 with long minor etc.
Main point I wish to repeat is this seems to be a rare problem at the table.

No, with an invite hand with long minor and 4 card major, I bid the major.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Main point I wish to repeat is this seems to be a rare problem at the table.

This doesn't matter - until it matters - then it really matters. The reason most try to fill the holes prior to play.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on May 6 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

Quote

Main point I wish to repeat is this seems to be a rare problem at the table.

This doesn't matter - until it matters - then it really matters. The reason most try to fill the holes prior to play.

I strongly disagree with this goal of trying to fill all or almost all the system holes!
My goal is try and achieve something close to 70% bidding accuracy.

Playing, defending, counting and visualizing the hands is so much much more important.

To repeat if I can Ever get close to 70% I would be very pleased.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 6 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 6 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

Quote

Main point I wish to repeat is this seems to be a rare problem at the table.

This doesn't matter - until it matters - then it really matters. The reason most try to fill the holes prior to play.

I strongly disagree with this goal of trying to fill all or almost all the system holes!
My goal is try and achieve something close to 70% bidding accuracy.

Playing, defending, counting and visualizing the hands is so much much more important.

To repeat if I can Ever get close to 70% I would be very pleased.

To each his own.

My view, though, is when the play, visualizattion, count, etc. abilities reach the point of a washout, then against those players you cannot afford to give them a 30% advantage in the bidding.

Howard Shenken comes to mind, developing his Shenken Club after witnessing the powerful bidding advantage held by the Italians in Bermuda Bowl play.

I agree that depending on ability level the emphasis should be different - it doesn't matter if you can outbid them if you are massively outplayed.

[mike777]

My guess is if Schenken ever got close to 70% bidding accuracy he would never lose.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 6 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

My guess is if Schenken ever got close to 70% bidding accuracy he would never lose.

Also, Mike, if you have to leave holes, isn't it better to leave the holes in the weaker hands where game is not likely than in invitational sequences where a game bonus might be secured?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on May 6 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

mike777, on May 6 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

My guess is if Schenken ever got close to 70% bidding accuracy he would never lose.

Also, Mike, if you have to leave holes, isn't it better to leave the holes in the weaker hands where game is not likely than in invitational sequences where a game bonus might be secured?

I assume you mean the hands we are in 3nt when 5clubs was the winner. I am seldom/very seldom not in game. Yes this is a hole I choose to live with, really.

[jtfanclub]

pbleighton, on May 6 2007, 07:54 AM, said:

If you play 1D-2C and 1D-2D as GF:

1. What's the best treatment for invitational hands without a 4 card major? If you play 1D-3C as a diamond raise, and 1D-2NT as balanced, what do you do with hands with 6+ clubs?

2. Can one or both contain a 4 card major?

Peter

I guess the complaint is using the 1NT response as 6-10?

If partner has 11-14 balanced, he can pass.
If partner has a balanced 15-17, he wouldn't have opened 1♦ in the first place.
If partner has a balanced 18-19, he can bid 3NT.

If partner has an unbalanced 11-14, he can pass or bid 2♣/2♦
If partner has an unbalanced 15-17, he can invite.
If partner has an unbalanced 18-19, he can force game.

Worst case scenario, you end up at 2NT or (more likely) 3 of a minor with 21 hcp. It happens. I've seen bigger holes.

How about 1♦-2♥ as a club suit and 1♦-2♠ as the diamond suit?

1♦-2♥-2♠= Decline, long diamonds, don't like clubs (2- clubs).
1♦-2♥-2NT= Decline, balanced (2 clubs)
1♦-2♥-3♣= Decline, but like clubs.
1♦-2♥-3♦=Accept, long diamonds, don't like clubs (2- clubs).
1♦-2♥-3♥=Accept, like clubs, either singleton or need help in suit.
1♦-2♥-3♠=Accept, like clubs, either singleton or need help in suit.
1♦-2♥-3NT= Balanced, both majors stopped, says nothing about clubs.

Just a thought.

[pbleighton]

jt:

Thanks for the suggestion, but I should have specified that I play ACBL GCC events, and the 2H/2S would have to be GF to be legal.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

pbleighton, on May 7 2007, 08:20 AM, said:

jt:

Thanks for the suggestion, but I should have specified that I play ACBL GCC events, and the 2H/2S would have to be GF to be legal.

Peter

Arrrgh, stupid GCC. Sorry. So for this to be GCC legal...

1♦-2♣=Invitational hand with a club suit. 90% forcing.
1♦-2♦=GF
1♦-2♥=GF with a club suit.
1♦-2♠=Invitational with a diamond suit.

Note that the last one is legal:
5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS AND/OR NOTRUMP BIDS AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER
to indicate a raise or to force to game.

but the switch of the club and heart bids violates your original premise.

I'm afraid there doesn't seem to be any way to have an invitational club bid that will allow you to stop at 2NT, besides 2♣. And to me, there doesn't seem to be any point in inviting in clubs unless you can stop in 2NT, since every time I invite in clubs partner has a 4=3=5=1 distribution.

[mgoetze]

Winstonm, on May 6 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

This doesn't matter - until it matters - then it really matters. The reason most try to fill the holes prior to play.

There is no perfect bidding system - they all have holes somewhere. For instance, most players of "Standard" bidding systems have a hole in their system when it comes to minimum openers with 5 hearts and 4 spades. They could play Flannery, but then they'd have a hole in their system when they hold a weak-2 in diamonds. Most relay systems have a hole when it comes to 9-card suits...

[mhais]

i play 1d 2c & 1d 1d as invitional. therefore no comments but rhe problem u raised is nice i am also interested in correct answer, ty.

[mhais]

i play 1d 2c & 1d 1d as invitional. therefore no comments but rhe problem u raised is nice i am also interested in correct answer, ty.