[Chamaco]

mgoetze, on May 8 2007, 02:25 PM, said:

I think the advantages and disadvantages of relay systems are well-known enough, no need to discuss it further.

Well, a catchall rebid is not necessarily the start a full relay sequence, although it might bear quite a few similarities .-)

[mikeh]

Chamaco, on May 8 2007, 09:06 AM, said:

A side note about the use of 4th suit forcing in a 2/1 GF framework: I do think this is really an unsound treatment to rely on 4sf as a further asking bid: it does eat tons of bidding space (when setting a GF is not really needed anymore) , so much that I think it is really unplayable.  :-)

Just my 2 cents of moronic wisdom :-)

While, in general, I agree that use of 4SF in an auction already committed to game is redundant, there is one case in which the use of the 4th suit as a 'noise' (not as a 'force', since the force is already established) makes sense.

1♠ 2♣ 2♦ ... Responder may be something like Kx xxx Qxx AKJxx and is really stuck for a bid that is descriptive and avoids wrong-siding the final contract. Use of 2♥ in this sequence, as artificial, is beautiful in the sense that it uses no space and preserves flexibility with little cost to constructive bidding. On the rare hands where opener is 5=4=4=0 and bid 2♦, he can always raise to 3♥.... and could also raise on a chunky 3 bagger on 5=3=4=1, which still allows us to get to 4♥ when the 4=4 fit exists or we have a playable moysian (methods that prevent us from finding and playing in 4-3 fits are not for me.... I don't go out of my way to find or play in them, but we need to preserve the option).

This kludge allows us to preserve the 2♠ preference over 2♦ as genuine support: with fewer than 3 cards, responder will always have another call available: rebid of a 6 card club suit, raise with 4♦s, bid 2N with ♥s stopped, and 2♥ as the default noise.

[Chamaco]

mikeh, on May 8 2007, 03:05 PM, said:

Chamaco, on May 8 2007, 09:06 AM, said:

A side note about the use of 4th suit forcing in a 2/1 GF framework: I do think this is really an unsound treatment to rely on 4sf as a further asking bid: it does eat tons of bidding space (when setting a GF is not really needed anymore) , so much that I think it is really unplayable.  :-)

Just my 2 cents of moronic wisdom :-)

While, in general, I agree that use of 4SF in an auction already committed to game is redundant, there is one case in which the use of the 4th suit as a 'noise' (not as a 'force', since the force is already established) makes sense.

1♠ 2♣ 2♦ ... Responder may be something like Kx xxx Qxx AKJxx and is really stuck for a bid that is descriptive and avoids wrong-siding the final contract. Use of 2♥ in this sequence, as artificial, is beautiful in the sense that it uses no space and preserves flexibility with little cost to constructive bidding. On the rare hands where opener is 5=4=4=0 and bid 2♦, he can always raise to 3♥.... and could also raise on a chunky 3 bagger on 5=3=4=1, which still allows us to get to 4♥ when the 4=4 fit exists or we have a playable moysian (methods that prevent us from finding and playing in 4-3 fits are not for me.... I don't go out of my way to find or play in them, but we need to preserve the option).

This kludge allows us to preserve the 2♠ preference over 2♦ as genuine support: with fewer than 3 cards, responder will always have another call available: rebid of a 6 card club suit, raise with 4♦s, bid 2N with ♥s stopped, and 2♥ as the default noise.

Sure, of course in this sequence the "4sf" is useful, but perhaps I'd label it as "cheapest responder's bid" rather than 4sf ?

[SoTired]

mikeh, on May 8 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

While, in general, I agree that use of 4SF in an auction already committed to game is redundant, there is one case in which the use of the 4th suit as a 'noise' (not as a 'force', since the force is already established) makes sense.

I think that is the exception that proves the rule. The 4th suit in an already GF auction should be natural. But sometimes you make a natural bid that turns out to be artificial. Like opener jump-shifting into a 3-card suit.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on May 8 2007, 05:25 AM, said:

I have attempted to respond to all posters at least once.  If I have missed insulting anyone, it was because the post was simply so lame that adding further criticism would have been akin to debating an idiot savant on the meaning of life, and there would have been no point in further public humiliation of someone so obvioulsy a total moron.   

You idiot! Even if I didn't post in this thread, I demand to be treated equally! I would have to be an idiot not to respond to th....ooops.

[awm]

Fourth suit natural isn't even playable! I can't understand why anyone would prefer this meaning over 4th suit as a punt. Look at some example auctions:

1♥-2♣-2♦-3♣...???

Obviously the natural meaning for 3♦ is a 5-5 hand, and 3♥ would be a 6-4. So what's 3♠? I guess you could play that it shows exactly 4-5-4-0, but how useful is that? Basically you're announcing that you hate partner's suit, and you'd like to play in a suit that partner can't even have (spades)? Partner's just going to bid 3NT over that right? Why didn't I bid 3NT myself? Am I trying to help opponents count out the hand on defense? It makes much more sense to use 3♠ as "I don't know where we should play" showing some hand with doubt about strain and asking partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper.

1♠-2♦-3♣...???

Regardless of whether opener shows extra points or just 5-5 shape, it seems clear that 3♦ shows a bunch of diamonds and 3♠ agrees spades. What's 3♥? I guess you could play that it shows hearts, but I bet most of us bid 2♥ by responder with 5-5 in the reds and 2♥ by opener with 5404. So you're not really going to find a heart fit this way. You're just announcing a misfit, helping opponents count your hand, and basically telling partner to bid 3NT unless his hand is ridiculously good. Why not bid 3NT yourself? Wouldn't it be useful to have a call with a 2353 pattern and weak hearts? Or do you want to just bid 3NT and play there with opponents holding 9 hearts to all the honors between them (and don't kid yourself that they won't find the lead!)

Even in simple auctions like 1♠-2♦-2♥, where you have 2♠ available, wouldn't it be nice if 2♠ could guarantee a real fit? Think how easy your slam auctions get with opener having space to pattern out, unambiguous use of serious/nonserious 3NT, and so forth and so on. Yeah bidding 3♣ is a little higher, but this shows a very specific type of hand -- basically 2353 with weak clubs, or maybe 2254/1354 with four tiny clubs. Usually opener can set the strain opposite a call like this.

Of course, I suppose you could reverse the meanings and play "empathetic 3NT" where you bid 3NT without a stopper and partner removes it without a stopper, whereas bidding the fourth suit shows a suit and asks partner to bid 3NT unless he doesn't want to. Surely we will see a string of posts arguing the merits of this approach, which makes about as much sense as "reverse gambling 3NT" where you open 3NT with three suits stopped and partner can only pass holding a solid seven card suit.....

[Al_U_Card]

awm, on May 8 2007, 01:30 PM, said:

"reverse gambling 3NT" where you open 3NT with three suits stopped and partner can only pass holding a solid seven card suit.....

So by "reverse gambling" you mean that it is safer?.....rofl I expect it to be played by someone, somewhere, sometime.....

[foo]

Winstonm, on May 6 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 - does opener's reverse after a 2/1 response show extras?  Make your case.  Using terms like idiot, foolishness, harebrained, and imbecile is encouraged. 

The whole point of 2/1 absolutely GF is to make it possible to find the right contract by bidding one's shape as naturally as possible.

IOW, we have no more need for strength minimums on reverses and jump shifts because we know GOP "has the goods."

Thus we can reserve those sequences that we used to need for showing extras for
a= natural shape showing. Very valuable when looking for the correct game or slam. OR
b= specific hand types that are hard to show otherwise. These are often called "picture bids".

All great in theory. There are practical problems.

With a 5M332 minimum, is your rebid 2M or 2N after 1M-2m?
If it's a =5233 min, what do you rebid after 1S-2H?
My vote for either answer is 2N or 2M depending on the texture of the hand.

How about if you have a 53(23) min after 1S-2H?
Most of us would raise H's. There are some hands where a 2N rebid is reasonable.

Go through the same exercise with minimum 5422's.
Just how strong do you want to be to raise: 1M-2m;3m (in your 4 card minor)?
Holding 52(24) after 1S-2H, when will you rebid 2S and when will you rebid 2N?
Are you allowed to ever rebid 3m and show your 4cm?

How about minimum 5431's?
51(34) 1S-2H; your rebid? Is 2N allowed here in your partnership? When are you expected to rebid 2S? Again, is a 3m rebid allowed?
Remember, we =are= playing 2/1 GF. OTOH, the auction gets high fast in 1S-2H;3m.

Those who require that 1M-2/1;2M requires 6+M or an exceptional 5cM with no better bid gain clarity in that sequence at the expense of putting more pressure on their other rebids. Particularly the 2N rebid.

These are "bread and butter" sequences. You and GOP better be on the same wavelength or you have 3 opponents.

Forget what is "optimal". What matters most here is that you and GOP have the same understandings.

IME, the icky parts involve when we are allowed to go past 2N for Opener's rebid.
I've played all of
a= Bid your shape and don't worry about HCP. We are in a GF.
b= Shapely mins [51(34), 53(14), etc] are allowed to rebid 3m to show their shape if needed. OTOH most if not all, 52(24) mins must rebid 2M or 2N.
c= If Opener rebids at the 3 level, they have 15+ HCP. (Why are we playing 2/1 again?)

IME, "a" and "b" are more playable than "c" since "c" ends up having many of the same bidding problems Standard does.

Which brings us to Reverses after GF 2/1's
IMHO, 1D-2C;2M or 1H-2m;2S should !not! require extras for all the reasons given above.

OTOH, "High Reverses" that cross 2N are not so clear cut and should be explicitly discussed with GOP.

Regardless of what is theoretically optimal, the most important thing is that you and GOP be in agreement.

[helene_t]

I wonder why all you would-be wizkids play such an inferior system in the first place - if you really are half as smart as you pretend to be by ranting about all kind of possible scientific solutions to to these problems, surely you'd be able to play a real system like Precision or Moscito.

The root of the whole problem is that after a 2/1 response, there's no captainship. Both partners have a nice hand and want to waste a lot of bidding space bragging about it.

It is an interesting sociobiological problem why such proto-dinosaurian behaviour hasn't been eliminated by natural selection. Anyone who has studied the mating games at the higher staff meetings of a government institution know that the phenomena extends far beyond bridge. Presumably, the males (since postmodernism including some females) that brag the loudest have been more successful in passing on their genes than those who brag the wisest, let alone the ones who listen.

I agree with Mauro (hate to say that I agree with that proletarian wannabe-gigolo but even a blindfolded baboon can hit bull's eye by accident) that opener should use the first step rather than the rebid of his suit in an artificial way. Now if you play something like:
- First step: I'm strong and I'm captain, tell me more
- Anything else: I'm weak and now I tell you what I have
then it starts looking like an element of a real bidding system.

Then again, since the whole system sucks in the first place the best you can hope for is to turn it into a dead body with a facelift. I'm sure you don't want more than that, though. After all, the most important feature of a bidding system is sufficient vagueness to allow both partners to keep believing that the distasters were caused by the other partner.

[foo]

helene_t, on May 19 2007, 03:58 AM, said:

I wonder why all you would-be wizkids play such an inferior system in the first place - if you really are half as smart as you pretend to be by ranting about all kind of possible scientific solutions to to these problems, surely you'd be able to play a real system like Precision or Moscito.

The root of the whole problem is that after a 2/1 response, there's no captainship.

I've played many Forcing Club systems as well as SA, 2/1, Acol, and KS. Heck, I've even experimented with (gasp! XXX rated!) Forcing Pass systems.

You know the biggest lessons I've learned from it?
1= The =players= matter far more than the system.
2= TANSTAAFL. =Every= system has good points and bad points. =Every= system does relatively better in some situations and relatively worse in others compared to other systems.

Even playing a Forcing Club system there are hands where Captaincy is shared or where Captaincy gets reversed or seized at some point during the auction.
If you can't handle these sorts of situations, your ATT results =are= going to suffer.

FTR, my FAVORITE system is modern KS. I'll take on you Forcing Club folks who play at my level any day of the week with modern KS. I'll find all the slams you do +and+ I won't have the opponents in my face preempting me and forcing Us to make the last guess anywhere near as often.

Issues of system optimality aside, the other reason SA, and 2/1 are good systems to know is that it is far easier to find a pick up partner playing either than it is to find one who plays a Forcing Club system. Or, unfortunately, KS.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

The whole point of 2/1 absolutely GF is to make it possible to find the right contract by bidding one's shape as naturally as possible.

IOW, we have no more need for strength minimums on reverses and jump shifts because we know GOP "has the goods."

I don't agree with this at all. The whole point of 2/1 GF is to allow both opener & responder to make space-saving, temporizing bids, when a more descriptive bid isn't available, without fear that partner is going to drop short of game. This allows you to better find the best strain for game, and better evaluate slam potential.

If you are going to make light reverses just because you have the shape, basically you are eschewing the ability to temporize, & you are chewing up the space you are supposed to be saving. All your bids become wide ranging & it becomes impossible to untangle whether it is safe to bypass 3nt.

Under what conditions do you believe the shape showing gains? Much of the time, the people who temporize first can often show shape later, at a similar level, and at the same bid height have now limited themselves, and maybe also given partner a chance to limit themselves, clearly an advantage. Also by giving more room for responder, responder's 2nd bids become more descriptive. When you make a high reverse on mins as well as good hands, not only do you make your own bid less descriptive, you make partner's rebid less descriptive, because he will have fewer choices between your bid & 3nt.

[foo]

Stephen,
As I stated in my earlier post, IMHO there is good reason to treat bids below 2N differently from bids that have to cross 2N when playing 2/1 GF.

Thus reverses don't necessarily require extras; but bids past 2N are a different story.

I've never gotten in trouble playing 2/1 GF and freely bidding 1D-2C;2M or 1H-2m;2S regardless of strength. Playing SA, these sequences would require medium+ opening hands.

1M-2m;3m or, worse, 1M-2D;3C or 1S-2H;3m are potentially a very different story.

Nonetheless, I've played in 2/1 GF partnerships where I was expected to bid out my shape regardless of HCP and it worked out reasonably.

I've also played in partnerships where I was expected to show more restraint than above but bid more freely than if playing SA.
So for instance 5431's w/ 4 card support could freely raise 1M-2m;3m or bid 1M-2D;3C to show 5M+4C (or the equivalent 5S+4m after 1S-2H;3m) but 5422's could not raise or show their 4 carder w/o extras.

...and as long as we bid according to System, things worked out.

The important lesson seems to be that having firm agreements and following them is more important than finding the optimal agreements.

[jdonn]

foo, on May 20 2007, 01:07 AM, said:

The important lesson seems to be that having firm agreements and following them is more important than finding the optimal agreements.

That is very true but the point of the thread is to discuss the optimal methods.

[foo]

jdonn, on May 20 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

foo, on May 20 2007, 01:07 AM, said:

The important lesson seems to be that having firm agreements and following them is more important than finding the optimal agreements.

That is very true but the point of the thread is to discuss the optimal methods.

In that case, my vote based on experience is that reverses, or any other bid below 2N, do !not! require extras playing 2/1 GF.

OTOH, Rebids past 2N, particularly new suits past 2N, should be explicitly discussed.

[skjaeran]

Winstonm, on May 8 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

I have attempted to respond to all posters at least once. If I have missed insulting anyone, it was because the post was simply so lame that adding further criticism would have been akin to debating an idiot savant on the meaning of life, and there would have been no point in further public humiliation of someone so obvioulsy a total moron.

Winston, have you abandoned this thread?
Or are all new posters after May 8 "simply so lame that adding further criticism would have been akin to debating an idiot savant on the meaning of life, ...".

[Fluffy]

skaeran, on May 20 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

Winston, have you abandoned this thread?
Or are all new posters after May 8 "simply so lame that adding further criticism would have been akin to debating an idiot savant on the meaning of life, ...".

Probably both

[Winstonm]

No, it's simply that when the moronic issue of fourth-suit forcing was raised, I decided further enlightenment would be wasted on such intellect and have therefore been spending my time debating a rock on the meaning of existence and getting more intellectual stimulation.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on May 20 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

foo, on May 20 2007, 01:07 AM, said:

The important lesson seems to be that having firm agreements and following them is more important than finding the optimal agreements.

That is very true but the point of the thread is to discuss the optimal methods.

No, the point of this thread was to insult morons who think they know what is the point of this thread. You want an optimal agreement thread, go start your own.

[han]

No, the point of this thread was to insult morons
Only one moron in this room Winston.


.....

Why don't you master the art of finessing before you talk system with the big boys Helene.


I'll take on you Forcing Club folks who play at my level...


People at your level play SAYC foo.


but the point of the thread is


Shut up Josh! Even Mike777's English is better than yours.

(wow, two insults in one sentence!)

[keylime]

<purely parody with the theme of the topic; therefore don't take it seriously>

Depending on the village idiot that is playing with you in the role of central hand opponent, I am forced to play it for fear of losing said partner one of 2 ways:

1. 1H - 2C - 2S and forms thereof -> Extra values to cater to my partner's ridiculous excuse of a 2/1 response, i.e. a hand that jump shifts or opens a forcing club only to get preempted vigorously at 4 when it comes back to you since pard doesn't have their bid to begin with. This is "slow arrival"... which explains why pard needed that Citrucel to get their "arrival" sped up.

2. Picture showing: You, in you attempt to steer partner away from 3NT, show your suits and pray that either you do not get passed in a forcing bid or that pard will get excited and table the abomination that is....4NT, only to yank it back into your major with a suit unstopped because they missorted their hand, those pansies....

I know there are some visionaries that play some sort of rebid that shows any minimum....