[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jul 12 2007, 10:24 PM, said:

The pro of bidding 2♠ with support is that you can have incredibly good slam-probe auctions.

The downside?

You want to bid 2♠ with a possible doubleton.  If you actually have a doubleton spade, and also not a heart fit, then you have eight cards in the minors.

If you have eight cards in the minors, you usually have both minors, or a lot of one minor.  Those are not problem hands.

So, you give the example of the poor first suit (KJxxx) and a lousy fourth suit (xxx), the "death hand."  That's the real "problem hand."

Well, it seems rather silly to some of us to forfeit an entire level of cuebidding space to enable us to handle a specific problem hand that is handled perfectly fine with FSF or a rebid of the original minor.  The 2♠ as support is incredibly playable.  Cannot seem to remember ever having a problem there.

On the other hand, I really like the ability to exchange information after 2♠.

First, Opener now has the ability to make 10 initial bids between 2♠ and 4♠, showing a lot of different holdings.  If he has poor trumps (not two of the top three), and bids 2NT, Responder has nine different first calls to describe hand that would not go through an initial splinter, an initial Jacoby 2NT, and initial Bergen 3♣, or an initial jump to 4♠ rather than bidding 2♠.  If Responder can cuebid 3♣, then Opener has 8 ways to describe hands that start with 2NT.  When you do all of these permutations, quite a bit of info can pass back and forth before you even reach 3♠.

Most notably, you can find out about spade keycards.  Very often, we both know how many keycards we have in trumps before we even reach 3NT.  In contrast, the alternative style leaves that question for 4NT answers.

But, I suppose all of that should be forfeited to be able to handle that incredibly rare hand where we have a minor suit hole and for some unexplained reason do not want to bid FSF or rebid the minor.

Ken, you are, as you no doubt understood, the classic example I had in mind about those who espouse their own idiosyncratic methods

No-one I know uses your style of rebids after 2♠ as revealing or denying keycard holdings.

I am not saying it is unplayable... altho I suspect that it is one of those ideas that works well on the hands where it works and which creates all kinds of problems on the ones that you will undoubtedly claim never happen. But, while I realize that I am probably wasting my time on this, I do ask you to consider discussing the merits of 2♠ as preference/support or as pure support without bringing in your own peculiar methods... and without turning this thread into a protracted argument in favour of said methods...the OP asked for mainstream, real-world usable with most partners methods...not the ones you put in your book.. which hasn't become widely read...and that was NOT a shot at the quality of the book, merely an observtion that few will know your ideas.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 12 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

I am not saying it is unplayable... altho I suspect that it is one of those ideas that works well on the hands where it works and which creates all kinds of problems on the ones that you will undoubtedly claim never happen.

This is a tad difficult to respond to, for many reasons.

First, the early comment that resulted in my post was that this style is unplayable. Now you are saying that you are not saying that it is unplayable. So, I'm scratching my head as to the nuance I must be missing.

Second, I'm not particularly concerned as to what other people have as a technique here, at least as to specifics. With different techniques, you still gain enormously by having agreement at the two-level. Sure, some use pattern completion, which I once used, and that works very well also. Pattern completion is not as usable if no fit is known, because then you are not addressing the stopper problem.

Third, the "idiosyncratic methods" after the 2♠ call do not "create all kinds of problems." I'd wager quite a large sum that I'd have better success at description after a 2♠ call that establishes trumps with my techniques than anyone you want to toss in. But, that's not the point of the discussion. The point is whether the 2♠ bid itself, as guaranteeing support, is an idiosyncratic method (clearly not) or whether it "creates all kinds of problems that I will undoubtedly claim never happen."

That's the part that I just do not understand. What is the problem?

If Responder has no major fit and the other minor stopped, he can bid 2NT and see what happens next. Those are easy auctions.

If Opener has a rebiddable minor, he can rebid his minor. If the minor is clubs, Opener's 3♦ call solves a world of problems. Still no issue.

If the minor is not rebiddable, and the first minor was diamonds, 3♣ solves a world of hurt.

If the minor is not rebiddable and was clubs, 3♦ is the punt bid.

If the minor is rebiddable and was diamonds, without a club stopper, 3♣ instead of 3♦ solves that problem.

What on earth is the hand that is causing the problem?

I'm not meaning to sound the way I think it sounds, but I've been playing 2♠ as guaranteeing a fit, with this other way of handling the trouble hands, and I'm just not seeing any of the problems materializing into bad results. I hear it when you say that it does, but I'm not seeing it.

It just sounds nutty to be talking about "all kinds of problems" when I'm not having any problems at all. So, I suppose that I'll simply respectfully disagree.

It is kind of funny, actually. Some people are apparently playing "Style X" and are convinced that "Style Y" is bad because of "all kinds of problems." Of course, the Style X people don't know, because they are not playing Style Y and hence do not know whether the Style Y people actually are having any problems. Now, the Style Y people say that they are not having any problems and don't even understand the claims that they are having problems. So, the Style X thinks that the Style Y people are just kidding themselves.

I like that type of argument. I'll try it.

Your idea of bidding 2♠ with possibly a two-card fit means that you play in 5-2 fits all the time and miss obvious 3NT contracts. If you claim that you do not, which I expect, I know that you are simply kidding yourself. I cannot imagine that you really can work it out. In fact, I think that this style causes you to arbitrarily jump to 7NT all the time, doubled, down exactly two on the lead of a small diamond.

That's nonsense, of course.

[jdonn]

There are a few definite upsides to having 2♠ promise support.

It lets opener (and thusly responder) describe his hand further at a low level when a fit is found. It doesn't even matter if you like Ken's methods or not for further bidding over the 2♠ bid, any reasonable methods there will help reach better games and slams, including totally natural bidding. It is just as easy if not easier to construct hands where you would rather be in 3NT with a 5-3 fit as 4♠ in a 5-2 fit.

It also frees up a very useful 3♠ bid. Useful no matter how you play it, whether it is a splinter for opener's second suit (too likely to be forgotten for my tastes, but I'm sure there are good hands for it), or some strong or specific hand with support for opener, the point is you will get use out of it. If 2♠ may not be support then you must either jump to 3♠ every time you really have support, or make the 2♠ bid itself completely ambiguous. Sure you can just say you will bid 2♠ then 3♠ with support (over what you seem to play as opener's artificial 2NT bid) but then you have wasted the entire level all the same as per my first point.

What about the simple argument that hands with a spade fit are probably 25 times more likely than 2335 hands with xxx in diamonds (I can truly say I don't even remember holding that exact hand on that exact auction although I probably have a couple times, but I can remember tons of times I held support), so it makes sense to cater the system to those more common hands even if the individual gains are more marginal? I have a hard time worrying about a cost that I don't even recall incurring, despite how massive you make it sound.

Honestly, I don't think it's worth getting worked up over this whole debate for a few reasons. One is that either way you play it works fine almost all the time. Another is that there are any number of far superior methods, involving artificial bidding or some sort of transfers on some/any of responder's first bid, opener's rebid, and responder's rebid, so if someone really cares that deeply they could simply find better methods anyway. It just seems like you are on a mission Mike, and I just don't see why.

[jtfanclub]

I can't speak for mikeh, obviously, but I think one major problem is, after

1♠-2♣-2♥-3♦

3♥ should show 5 hearts, but what should 3♠ show?

There's two hands it needs to be. One is the 5-4 without a stopper in diamonds: the AQJxx KQJx xx xx hand. This hand obviously cannot bid 3NT, and really, what else can it say? 4 clubs?

The other is 6-4 with a stopper in diamonds, the AJTxxx KQxx Ax x hand. This hand clearly wants to play in 4 spades if partner has 2 spades, but what if partner has one spade? Or no spades? Now 3NT may very well be the best place to play.

So it seems to me that playing that 2 spades promises a fit helps for slam probes, but it makes it less likely that you'll find your best game.

[helene_t]

If 2♠ can be a doubleton, I think you should agree how opener finds out. After
1♠-2♣
2♥-2♠
opener can pattern out, or he can bid 2NT which asks responder to describe his kind of 2♠-bid:
....
2NT-?

3♣: 6 clubs, 3 spades, not pure enough for 4♠ on previous round.
3♦: Typically 3145. Again if this shape allowed for a direct 4♠ previsously there is negative inference.
3♥: 3316.
3♠: 3226/3325/3235, again there is negative inference.
3N: This is the problem hand, 2335 without a ♦ guard. The problem with this is that it has no range. Maybe some ranges could be put into 3♥ which is also a sort-off natural bid with this hand.

[ArcLight]

Why would responder bid 2♠ with just 2 in this auction:

1♠ - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠


2♠ guarantees 3+. This might cause you problems on certain hands. But it will make the bidding smoother on many many more.

[kenrexford]

It seems that one of the perceived problems with bidding NMF is that you cannot handle wild minor two-suiters effectively. For instance, 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♣, if NMF, is not reliable as showing 5-5 in the minors.

That is true. However, the strange paradox for me would be that I would not tend to bid 3♣ unless I did not have clubs, and that I would tend to bid 2NT if I did have clubs.

The reason? My first concern is 3NT when it smells of a misfit, or when I need help in the other minor. So, FSF helps that.

If we have an unexpected fit for one of my minors, 2NT works fine. Partner will pattern out when relevant, bidding even a new-suit fragment to show the pattern, and I can then, if slammish, raise that fragment. So, the partnership bidding works without any need to show values.

This also avoids the wrong-siding problem. FSF says -- you bid 3NT. 2NT says -- I can play 3NT. Too simplistic, but essentially correct.

[pclayton]

I'm a little busy today, so I won't devote much time to this discussion in the near term. Mike - I will concede that getting to a 5-2 or 4-3 when Opener has a 5422 is a problem (as a matter of fact, I think I DID concede that ).

[pclayton]

I've reviewed this with my regular pard and with Chris Larsen.

Chris is adamant about not wrong siding the NT with ♦xxx. 3N is a very likely spot for this hand so this is a huge concern. He's fine with 2♠ or 3♦

Harvey thinks this is a 3♦ call (2♠ absolutely promises support) and I'm beginning to agree.

[helene_t]

kenrexford, on Jul 13 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

It seems that one of the perceived problems with bidding NMF is that you cannot handle wild minor two-suiters effectively.  For instance, 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♣, if NMF, is not reliable as showing 5-5 in the minors.

That is true.  However, the strange paradox for me would be that I would not tend to bid 3♣ unless I did not have clubs, and that I would tend to bid 2NT if I did have clubs. 

The reason?  My first concern is 3NT when it smells of a misfit, or when I need help in the other minor.  So, FSF helps that.

3♣ should not be NMF here IMHO. If you need a catch-all bid, make it whatever is less space consuming, here 2♠. The case for 2♠ promising 3 is that you always have a natural bid, with a 2353 without a ♣ guards the smallest lie would be 3♦.

Or would "NMF" have the specific meaning of a 2353, 1354 or 2254 without a ♣ guard?

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Jul 14 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 13 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

It seems that one of the perceived problems with bidding NMF is that you cannot handle wild minor two-suiters effectively.  For instance, 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♣, if NMF, is not reliable as showing 5-5 in the minors.

That is true.  However, the strange paradox for me would be that I would not tend to bid 3♣ unless I did not have clubs, and that I would tend to bid 2NT if I did have clubs. 

The reason?  My first concern is 3NT when it smells of a misfit, or when I need help in the other minor.  So, FSF helps that.

3♣ should not be NMF here IMHO. If you need a catch-all bid, make it whatever is less space consuming, here 2♠. The case for 2♠ promising 3 is that you always have a natural bid, with a 2353 without a ♣ guards the smallest lie would be 3♦.

Or would "NMF" have the specific meaning of a 2353, 1354 or 2254 without a ♣ guard?

It is not a matter of what it shows pattern-wise. It is a matter of planning. 2NT starts auctions where the end can be NT played from that person's side. NMF starts many auctions, some of which are where 3NT cannot be played from that person's side.

[Trinidad]

The question essentially comes to: What is the meaning of 2♠, 3♠ and 4♠ after 1♠-2♣; 2♥?

My answers (which I think are fairly standard in Hardy, Lawrence and Bergen style 2/1):

4♠: a picture jump, minimum GF, 3 card support, controls in ♣ and ♠, but not in the other suits

3♠: 3(+) card support, mandates cuebidding below 4♠ (or if you like to play like that almost mandates cuebidding where opener can bid 4♠ with a real bad hand)

2♠: All other hands with 3 card support + the rare hand with 2 card support that doesn't have a decent other bid. I would say that in 99% of the cases the 2♠ bidder has 3 spades. (In the remaining 1% 4♠ in a 5-2 fit would usually not be a worse contract than 3NT.) A typical 1% hand would be ♠AQ ♥AJx ♦xx ♣KJxxxx or a 2335 without a diamond stop.

Finally, the meaning of the fourth suit bid, 3♦ in this case. This asks for a fifth heart, sixth spade or a stopper for 3NT. In that case you must be reasonably sure that you will have 9 tricks after opponents knock out your stop (or you need to bring a half stopper, hoping that partner will have 1.5 stopper or that 1.5 stoppers will turn out to be 2). Since partner is supposed to bid 3NT holding ♠Kxxxx ♥KQxx ♦Ax ♣Qx, or something similar, the 1% hand (♠AQ ♥AJx ♦xx ♣KJxxxx) is not suited for a 3♦ bid.

Rik