BBO Discussion Forums: 17 points, 6 hearts - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

17 points, 6 hearts partner opens

Poll: your bid (41 member(s) have cast votes)

your bid

  1. 1[he] (27 votes [65.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 65.85%

  2. 2[he] (13 votes [31.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.71%

  3. other (1 votes [2.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.44%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2007-June-18, 07:14

helene_t, on Jun 18 2007, 10:15 AM, said:

whereagles, on Jun 18 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

Guys, a SJS is a bit of a mastermind bid. Better only make one if you're absolutely sure where you're heading.

I disagree (but probably this is just semantics):

A SJS describes your hand and leaves the rest to partner. This seems to me to be the oppoisite of "masterminding".

So the criteria is not if you know where you are heading, but if you think partner will know where he's heading.

I see your point, and you're right. But now it struck me:

SJSs over unlimited openers are inconsistent.

Why? Because SJS are strong hands and strong hands should be taking charge, not handing it. But taking charge is wrong when opener is unlimited!

That's it: SJSs should be binned forever. They only make sense over LIMITED openers!
0

#62 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,724
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-June-18, 07:29

whereagles, on Jun 18 2007, 04:14 PM, said:

I see your point, and you're right. But now it struck me:

SJSs over unlimited openers are inconsistent.

Why? Because SJS are strong hands and strong hands should be taking charge, not handing it. But taking charge is wrong when opener is unlimited!

That's it: SJSs should be binned forever. They only make sense over LIMITED openers!

Here's the thing: Not everyone believes that its best for the strong hand to "take charge"... Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that folks who espouse such a view have a simplistic/superficial understanding of the issues involved.

The simplest counter example is to consider relay bidding structures. Many relay systems are deliberate engineered such that the balanced hand asks while the unbalanced hand shows. (Jeff Rubens had a very good article on this subject a few years back)

The more complex answer is to consider just what "taking charge" actually means. Take a look at some standard response structures that are used over a strong jump shift. Most of them require that the opener starts to describe his hand.

If opener has the two side suits stopped, then opener bids NT
If opener has Hx or better in responder's suit, then opener raises
If opener's suit is better than (whatever), then opener rebids his suit
If opener has HHx or better in a side suit, then he shows it
If opener can say anything specific, then he temporizes

In this case, the player making the Strong Jump shift is captain. The captaincy MIGHT shift as the auction progresses.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#63 User is offline   foo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,380
  • Joined: 2003-September-24

Posted 2007-June-18, 07:30

I'll be posting Part I of the write up on Strong JUmp Shifts in the General forum.

EDIT: I posted it here in the B & I forum.
0

#64 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,724
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-June-18, 07:36

foo, on Jun 18 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

I'll be posting Part I of the write up on Strong JUmp Shifts in the General forum.

Please make sure to provide a response to the immediate issue:

No one disputes that its possible to design a reasonable response structure based on mandatory cue bids after a strong jump shift. Lots of folks disagreed with your assertion that a Strong Jump shift "demands" a cue bid.

The original debate is whether or not this structure should (in any way) be considered standard.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#65 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,397
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Odense, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2007-June-18, 07:44

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 18 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

I'll be posting Part I of the write up on Strong JUmp Shifts in the General forum.

Please make sure to provide a response to the immediate issue:

No one disputes that its possible to design a reasonable response structure based on mandatory cue bids after a strong jump shift. Lots of folks disagreed with your assertion that a Strong Jump shift "demands" a cue bid.

The original debate is whether or not this structure should (in any way) be considered standard.

I think Mike Lawrence's approach makes more sense. It's the only one I've seen described at such a level of detail. And it certainly does not command cuebidding by opener.

Anyway, I think Foo should just describe whatever style he's familar with and recommends. Those interested in Lawrence's style can just buy Lawrence's books.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#66 User is offline   foo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,380
  • Joined: 2003-September-24

Posted 2007-June-18, 08:17

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2007, 06:57 AM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Jun 18 2007, 06:02 AM, said:

Look in between the parentheses ...

I stand corrected

No, you don't. At least, not if you are bidding according to the more modern teaching texts on SA.

If Audrey Grant (ACBL Series) and Edwin Kantar (_Bridge for Dummies_) are teaching today's novices that the only acceptable calls by a minimal responder after 1m-1M;1N are
a= pass, or
b= take a preference, or
c= rebid your suit cheaply
Then that is current modern SA.

The older style is no longer being taught by the ACBL's official teaching course. The ACBL official teaching course defines novice SA. Therefore the older style is no longer novice SA.

...and it even makes sense from the POV of basic principles that go back to at least as far as Charles Goren. Introducing new suits in auctions that could push the partnership to 2N means the partnership had better have the combined assets to handle 2N
A minimum opener opposite a minimum responder has no justification for being anywhere near 2N.

It is vitally important that the B & I's reading this get the correct information.
0

#67 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,724
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-June-18, 08:42

[quote name='foo' date='Jun 18 2007, 05:17 PM'] [/QUOTE]
I stand corrected [/QUOTE]
No, you don't. At least, not if you are bidding according to the more modern teaching texts on SA. [/quote]
I claim that I didn't read the ACBL's booklet on SAYC carefully enough.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#68 User is offline   foo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,380
  • Joined: 2003-September-24

Posted 2007-June-18, 08:54

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 18 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

I'll be posting Part I of the write up on Strong JUmp Shifts in the General forum.

Please make sure to provide a response to the immediate issue:

No one disputes that its possible to design a reasonable response structure based on mandatory cue bids after a strong jump shift. Lots of folks disagreed with your assertion that a Strong Jump shift "demands" a cue bid.

The original debate is whether or not this structure should (in any way) be considered standard.

Before we can have any discussion or debate regarding what the best response structure is to a SJS, first we must agree what a proper SJS looks like...

One of the major themes of this thread is confusion as to exactly that.

Additionally, I never claimed to care about casual writing on this or any other Bridge topic. I want to teach players to bid as well as experts with whatever tools they have available to them; and that means "standard" means something akin to "expert standard" not "casual standard".
0

#69 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2007-June-18, 09:47

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

Here's the thing:  Not everyone believes that its best for the strong hand to "take charge"...  Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that folks who espouse such a view have a simplistic/superficial understanding of the issues involved.

The simplest counter example is to consider relay bidding structures.  Many relay systems are deliberate engineered such that the balanced hand asks while the unbalanced hand shows.  (Jeff Rubens had a very good article on this subject a few years back)

People don't believe it's best for the strong hand to take charge because they are too scared of taking charge in the first place. Be it with a strong hand or a weak one, and experts included. Anyway, the point is people don't necessarily believe in stuff for technical reasons. Sometimes, their disbelief is more of an irrational reflection of one's personality.

Cheap psychology aside, you're right that there are occasions where it might be advisable for the weak hand to take charge, but those will be exceptions (even relay bidding doesn't quite work as you suggest). That's my point: as a rule, you're better off letting the strong hand do the asking. I don't think this is simplisitic. If you think so, well, as you know, I don't care much for what others think of my ideas... lol
0

#70 User is offline   vuroth 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,459
  • Joined: 2007-June-03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-June-18, 10:50

foo, on Jun 18 2007, 02:02 AM, said:

I started digging through all the books in my library, and I think I found the source of the confusion:
In older books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is non forcing.
In newer books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is forcing.

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers!
Still decidedly intermediate - don't take my guesses as authoritative.

"gwnn" said:

rule number 1 in efficient forum reading:
hanp does not always mean literally what he writes.
0

#71 User is offline   skjaeran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,727
  • Joined: 2006-June-05
  • Location:Oslo, Norway
  • Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy

Posted 2007-June-18, 11:18

pclayton, on Jun 17 2007, 07:31 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jun 17 2007, 12:38 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Jun 17 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

For the 1  bidders, how do you continue after 1:1  1nt ?

That's an easy one.
Those who play simple oldfashioned check back stayman rebids 2.
Those who play NMF rebid 2.
Those who play xy-NT or xyz rebid 2, art. GF.
Playing check back or NMF you have to follow up with a GF.

Agree with all of this except the XYZ followup. Playing XYZ you dont have to monkey around with 2D, but rather bid a direct 3H which expresses this hand type well.

That depends on which version of xyz you play. A jump to 3 here would show a distributional invite with a 7-card suit the way I'm familiar with.
Kind regards,
Harald
0

#72 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,657
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2007-June-18, 11:38

skaeran, on Jun 16 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

For the record, in my methods I'd bid 2 with this hand, transfer, showing either a WJS or a SJS (in 's).

Hey! I thought that I (and my former partner, Gord McOrmond) were the only ones who played this! I love it, btw... and remember, fondly, getting to 6 from opener's side with the suit of xx in dummy opposite my Kxx and RHO holding QJ10... a natural lead.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#73 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2007-June-18, 11:47

hum.. that transfer JS might be interesting after some proper twinking :)
0

#74 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,657
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2007-June-18, 11:54

foo, on Jun 18 2007, 02:53 AM, said:

Historical note:
SJS were invented as a way to deal with psyches by Opener.  The point of an SJS back then was to say "You're busted.  I know you're busted.  Nonetheless We very likely have a Game.  Start telling me what I need to know."

After public opinion pretty much killed off controlled psyches (and most psyches in general), the SJS evolved into a slam exploration tool with very specific characteristics.

You may be correct, but, if so, my collection of old bridge books is sadly lacking. I will have to dig out some of the older books, but my recollection of what the majority of early writers recommended was that the jump takeout was needed to establish a force. Psychics were a part of the game, and became extremely popular in the late 30's amongst a handful of tournament players and some big-name rubber players... I have some wonderful historical writings on psychic bidding back then. But the SJS predated the popularity of psychic bidding. My suspicion, based on the leading systems books of the day, is that the vast majority of bridge players (relatively few of whom were tournament players) knew next to nothing about psyches. They learned SJS as a way to reach game or slam.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#75 User is offline   BebopKid 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 2007-January-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Little Rock, Arkansas, USA

Posted 2007-June-18, 14:10

1, show strength later.


BebopKid (Bryan Lee Williams)

"I've practiced meditation most of my life. It's better than sitting around doing nothing."
(Tom Sims, from topfive.com)

0

#76 User is offline   foo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,380
  • Joined: 2003-September-24

Posted 2007-June-18, 14:41

mikeh, on Jun 18 2007, 12:54 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 18 2007, 02:53 AM, said:

Historical note:
SJS were invented as a way to deal with psyches by Opener.  The point of an SJS back then was to say "You're busted.  I know you're busted.  Nonetheless We very likely have a Game.  Start telling me what I need to know."

After public opinion pretty much killed off controlled psyches (and most psyches in general), the SJS evolved into a slam exploration tool with very specific characteristics.

You may be correct, but, if so, my collection of old bridge books is sadly lacking. I will have to dig out some of the older books, but my recollection of what the majority of early writers recommended was that the jump takeout was needed to establish a force. Psychics were a part of the game, and became extremely popular in the late 30's amongst a handful of tournament players and some big-name rubber players... I have some wonderful historical writings on psychic bidding back then. But the SJS predated the popularity of psychic bidding. My suspicion, based on the leading systems books of the day, is that the vast majority of bridge players (relatively few of whom were tournament players) knew next to nothing about psyches. They learned SJS as a way to reach game or slam.

This one, like many other potentially important facts regarding Bridge (example: go find documentation as to what Expert Standard is for instance- you can't.), is not in any books I know of.

Go look at some =old= high level tournament records. Or go gab a while with any of the remaining high level players old enough to actually remember this stuff.

Said lack of popular documentation is one of the reasons I try to teach this stuff as widely as possible. Lest "the Guildmaster died before passing on <foo>" effect of the Middle Ages occur in places within Bridge as well.

Unfortunately, it already has in some topics of Bridge lore :rolleyes:
0

#77 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,153
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2007-June-18, 14:47

Quote

1= "New Minor Forcing" is misnamed and should actually be called "New Minor Artificial".
It's not that a new minor was forcing or not before, it's that NMF allows you to make this bid even if you have a void in the bid minor...


No, foo, you are wrong on this one. NMF is a very old convention. At the time it was named, the "old books" as you say were the standard, & it was better known apparently that new minor after 1nt was non-forcing w/o special agreements.

Quote

(You may not believe this, I certainly had a hard time with it)
In older books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is non forcing.
In newer books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is forcing.


Newer books, plural, really? I am surprised Audrey Grant says this. Which other books say it? My bridge education consisted of reading hundreds of bridge books, including the entire collection of 3 municipal libraries & a university library. I am quite certain that I have never seen the new minor forcing natural treatment in print. Audrey Grant is one of the few common books I did not read.

You suggested by inference that Kantar's "Bridge For Dummies" also is teaching forcing natural. I took a look at the book, on this topic (new suit rebids after 1nt rebid) he is silent completely. So you are wrong here. Also, note that in FredG's Learn To Play Bridge program for the ACBL (also available on BBO), which surely also has to be considered a modern std, if not *THE* modern std, for teaching new players, if you go through the tutorial you will see that it very explicitly states that a 2d bid here is non-forcing & gives an example hand on which it should be bid. So I would not say that "newer books, 2d natural forcing". I think you found one oddball book, at best. I don't have Grant, so I can't verify, if you were wrong about Kantar perhaps also wrong about her? But I will give you benefit of doubt about her book. Perhaps you can quote the passage?

Frankly, I think everyone you interviewed who claim natural forcing as standard treatment is simply confused as you are. They have been playing NMF for so many decades that they don't remember what the natural non-conventional meaning is.

Quote

For my part, I have always agreed with the more modern logic. If Responder has a minimum, they should not be introducing new strains that might force the auction to 2N; particularly after Opener has shown a minimum.


Why would the auction ever be forced to 2nt? After a new suit NF rebid, opener is supposed to pass or take preference. Responder has shown a weak 5-5, it should play in one of those suits.

As for logic, consider this after 1c-1S-1nt: is it simpler to teach a new player that all the 2 level suit bids after this are natural non-forcing, or that 2d is the oddball natural forcing exception? To me, if teaching 2d is forcing, it would make more sense to simply teach them that 2d is NMF convention, and functions as a delayed pseudo-stayman like bid. Natural & forcing doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, it's inconsistent with 1c-1s-1nt-2h NF which hopefully everyone who's any good agrees is std. It's more logical to me that if no convention used, to teach 1c-1s-1nt-2d is simply the same as 1c-1s-1nt-2h except having diamonds instead of hearts.

Quote

It is vitally important that the B & I's reading this get the correct information.

I agree, and think my viewpoint is correct. If you want to teach them forcing, tell them it is the NMF convention and proceed accordingly, and tell them that NMF should be agreed w/ partner. But if they ever choose some other checkback mechanism, such as one-way checkback stayman (2c always the checkback), then the 2d bid should revert to its std natural meaning, and to me clearly non-forcing has greater utility than natural forcing.
0

#78 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,657
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2007-June-18, 15:20

foo, on Jun 18 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 18 2007, 12:54 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 18 2007, 02:53 AM, said:

Historical note:
SJS were invented as a way to deal with psyches by Opener.  The point of an SJS back then was to say "You're busted.  I know you're busted.  Nonetheless We very likely have a Game.  Start telling me what I need to know."

After public opinion pretty much killed off controlled psyches (and most psyches in general), the SJS evolved into a slam exploration tool with very specific characteristics.

You may be correct, but, if so, my collection of old bridge books is sadly lacking. I will have to dig out some of the older books, but my recollection of what the majority of early writers recommended was that the jump takeout was needed to establish a force. Psychics were a part of the game, and became extremely popular in the late 30's amongst a handful of tournament players and some big-name rubber players... I have some wonderful historical writings on psychic bidding back then. But the SJS predated the popularity of psychic bidding. My suspicion, based on the leading systems books of the day, is that the vast majority of bridge players (relatively few of whom were tournament players) knew next to nothing about psyches. They learned SJS as a way to reach game or slam.

This one, like many other potentially important facts regarding Bridge (example: go find documentation as to what Expert Standard is for instance- you can't.), is not in any books I know of.

Go look at some =old= high level tournament records. Or go gab a while with any of the remaining high level players old enough to actually remember this stuff.

Said lack of popular documentation is one of the reasons I try to teach this stuff as widely as possible. Lest "the Guildmaster died before passing on <foo>" effect of the Middle Ages occur in places within Bridge as well.

Unfortunately, it already has in some topics of Bridge lore :rolleyes:

Foo, you are not the Guildmaster :) Neither am I.

And there are NO current players who remember the origins of the game, as best as I know. The game developed in the late 1920's, so a young player of 25 or so would now be well past 100. I am not saying that there is no one left alive who actually played bridge in the late 1920's, but I am saying that none of the then-dominant experts remain alive.

Roth was probably the closest we had to that era, and he just passed away. But his heyday was the late 1940s into the 1960s.

As for the ability to recall or reconstruct the standard methods of the day, the truth is that you can, in any large city, probably find several relevant books in any good used book store... and, if not, go on ebay.

I collect old books on the game of bridge and its precursors....whist, Royal Auction Bridge, Auction Bridge and just plain old 'Bridge'. One of my favourites is The Bridge Manual by John Doe, 1902.

As for contract, there were a number of professional Auction players and teachers when Contract came along and several of them quickly set up as teachers of the new game. Thus we have books by Work (the inventor of the 4321 count) and Foster (the inventor of the Foster Echo and the discoverer, while a professional whist player in the 1880s of the Rule of 11), to name just two who published on Contract in the late 1920s... several years before Culbertson published the Blue Book.

Others published their own books, and a group of pros got together under the name of The Bridge Headquarters to publish the so-called 'Official System'... they were really pissed off at Culbertson and were trying, unsuccessfully, to dethrone him.

All of their methods appear antiquated to us, and the fact that they all used honour tricks as the primary evaluation method makes reading the books difficult.

But it is possible to track the changes in standard treatment, including the struggle over conversion to high card point count, not only in later books but also in the BW... a bastion of Culbertson thinking into the late 1940s, but in which the editors occasionally encouraged articles by promoters of point count, such as Fred Karpin.

A true student of the history of the game can actually find out a tremendous amount about it... including, as I wrote earlier, that the SJS was NOT invented to cater to psychic bidding. Yes, it later became a tool for that, but remember that psychic bidding NEVER became a significant part of most expert's arsenal. Look at Goren, for example. Look at the record of the Lenz-Culbertson challenge: Lenz fired the young Oswald Jacoby precisely because Oswald was to fond of psyching. Most experts in those days did not psyche much and they all used SJS.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#79 User is offline   foo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,380
  • Joined: 2003-September-24

Posted 2007-June-18, 15:45

Stephen,

You are correct that Kantar does not explicitly say that 1m-1M;1N-2lower is forcing.

But the implication is there in the fact that he discusses all the pertinent possiblities in other auctions and that he never feels he has to explicitly list this auction as an exception.

Taking a preference is demonstrated on p209
Rebidding your suit in a minimum Responding hand is demonstrated on p210 and p215
Passing 1N is demonstrated on p211.

!nowhere! does Kantar give an example or state that it is proper for a minimum Responder to introduce a new suit on the 2nd round of bidding.

The implication should be that clearly a minimum Responder should not introduce a new suit on the 2nd round of bidding.


Now let's try a logic experiment. Let's pretend -none- of the books existed and we were tasked with figuring out the best meanings should be here.

Your proposal is that 1m-1M;1N-2lower is NF. Mine is that a new suit here =is= forcing.

Your POV, what does Responder have to do to force Opener?
1C-1S;1N-??
2c? Nope it's a Preference
2d / 2h ? Nope they are lower ranking than Responder's 1st suit.
2s? Nope
2n? Nope
Hmmm. In your proposed methods, the only way for Responder to force Opener is to double jump bid with GF hands.

My POV:
1C-1S;1N-??
2c? Preference
2d / 2h? forcing
2s? Nope
2n? Nope
Under this system, Responder can force Opener 2 ways w/o having to jump the bidding which means jumps in these strains can be GF. Saving Us a whole level of bidding.
Now, what was the meaning in Old Fashioned Standard of Responder's 2nd round jumps in new suits?
Answer: that they were GF.

Invitational 2nd round jumps in new strains by Responder only became possible and popular after the advent of 4SF, NMF, etc.


QED 1m-1M;1N-2lower is forcing playing "natural" SA w/o conventions for these situations.
0

#80 User is offline   foo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,380
  • Joined: 2003-September-24

Posted 2007-June-18, 16:02

mikeh,

I certainly am !not! claiming any sort of special status!

Funny you should mention Al Roth. He, Norman Kay and a few others are one of the places I learned some of this history.

I'll see if I can get you a reference that you'll accept as definitive. It might take awhile.

In the meantime,
Re; the early history bridge and of SJS: none of my copies of
_Practical Auction Bridge_
_Lenz on Bridge_
circa 1926
talk about SJS AFAICS.

Culbertson's Red Book or Gold Book circa 1938 does.
calling it "The Forcing Takeout" response to an opening of 1ofasuit.
Interestingly, Culbertson's SJS looked very like Soloway's would ~30-40 years later.
Anyway some SJS examples from p183 of the 1938 edition of _Contract Bridge Complete: the new gold book_. All are 1H-??

1H-2S;
AK9xx.Kxx.AQ8x.x
AQJ8.QJx.AKxx.KT
AKJxxx.x.KQ8.Axx

1H-3C;
xx.QT9x.Ax.AKQxx

1H-3D;
Ax.Q8x.AK8x.KQxx
-.Q9xx.AKQxxx.KQx

They all look remarkable familar even ~70 years later.

As for the history of psyching, it definitely reached a peak in the 1950's and 1960's.
That is when I was told SJS began being heavily used as psychic controls.
0

  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

8 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 8 guests, 0 anonymous users