[cherdano]

skaeran, on Aug 10 2007, 11:33 AM, said:

ralph23, on Aug 10 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

http://taigabridge.c...cles/mafia1.htm

It may or may not be a propos re: the question of whether 1♠ or 2♣ is the superior bid on responder's first call, but I did discover this article earlier this week and thought it was pretty good in setting out the "three schools" and giving a pretty fair comparison.

Each school is shown and explained, with its virtues and vices.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in it ... I was, obviously. 

On my own part -- I'm not smart enough to dream up an artificial bid on a three-card suit when I have a natural and forcing bid available in 1♠, and who knows... partner may even have four ♠! Or on the other hand, he'll probably have 5♣ to the Queen if I bid 2♣...

But I still subscribe to that outdated and unfashionable philosophy: When all else fails, describe your hand.

They say Traditional, but it looks like the mean Stone Age to me.

At least from the following sequence:
1♣ - 1♦
1♥ - 3♥
4♥

The jump to 3♥ is explained as GF. Having played bridge since (early)mid seventies I've never ever played a method where 3♥ in this sequence was anything but invitational. To just get to game you raise 1♥ to 4♥. To cater for a possible slam you bid 1♠ FSF first and support ♥'s next.

Apart from that it's obvious the author(s) are non-experts. Several of the explanations of the auctions is less than waterproof. For inexperienced players thers's some good stuff though.

This might be more common than you think. Of course 3♥ is GF in old school bidding (60s or earlier), but it is also GF if you play XYZ, or if you play the style (quite uncommon but not without merit) where a direct jump raise is forcing and you go via 4th suit forcing and a raise to show an invite. It should also be forcing in a Walsh style where you need inv or better to skip a 4-card major. If you raise to 2♥, that implies an invite, so a jump to 3♥ should be forcing.

(Of course, a "Traditional" style where this is forcing can only mean the very old school, which is a bit odd to take as example.)

I agree though that the article is rather bad. In particular, I think the section on the advantages on disadvantages of the various styles completely misses the point. And I would strongly recommend any inexperienced player to stay away from MAFIA, just bid your longest suit first with a GF hand.

[ralph23]

BillHiggin, on Aug 10 2007, 02:46 PM, said:

"hired-gun-pro" is a bit extreme. I played with him once (my only face to face bridge in 25 years), and there certainly was no issue of funds changing hands.

Well, he doesn't charge much for his gun, anyhow. He does have a section of his website on "Professional Play" and quotes rates (sort of).

[sceptic]

A comment for Roland or anyone else for that matter (I am not arguing with you LOL) but, my thoughts here are as follows

1/. if I bid 1 spade, I am showing a spade suit before a heart fit and my main info I need to get across to my pard is support for his suit (support with support(something I failed a few times to do on other recent posts))

2/. I also have in my opinion a 100% game forcing hand (and I assumed this is what 2/1 is designed to get across at the lowest level)

3/. if I had an excellent spade suit (i.e. 5 cards) then maybe there is a benefit in showing the spade suit befor e the heart fit (again support with support)

4/. we play reverse bergen so jac 2NT and 3 level bids are out of the question as is 1NT then a raise hearts at any level (because the hand is far to good for that bid)

5/. this only really leaves me with a 2 club bid as if I had single club, I would either have 4 card support or a 5 card natural suit to bid

Playing within these constraints is 1 spade really an option?

[pclayton]

Walddk, on Aug 10 2007, 08:06 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 10 2007, 05:45 PM, said:

Some obviously would bid 1♠, as described.  For my part, I'm not in that school, as I believe that this muddles and preempts the auctions that follow.

Aha, 1♠ muddles the auction, but ...

2♣ can be a sort of advanced cue.
2♦ can be an anticipatory advanced cue

... will make the auction clear as ink I take it. I am lost.

Roland

and 2♥ is a em-pathetic splinter.

[pclayton]

sceptic, on Aug 10 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

A comment for Roland or anyone else for that matter (I am not arguing with you LOL) but, my thoughts here are as follows

1/. if I bid 1 spade, I am showing a spade suit before a heart fit and my main info I need to get across to my pard is support for his suit (support with support(something I failed a few times to do on other recent posts))

2/. I also have in my opinion a 100% game forcing hand (and I assumed this is what 2/1 is designed to get across at the lowest level)

3/. if I had an excellent spade suit (i.e. 5 cards) then maybe there is a benefit in showing the spade suit befor e the heart fit (again support with support)

4/. we play reverse bergen so jac 2NT and 3 level bids are out of the question as is 1NT then a raise hearts at any level (because the hand is far to good for that bid)

5/. this only really leaves me with a 2 club bid as if I had single club, I would either have 4 card support or a 5 card natural suit to bid

Playing within these constraints is 1 spade really an option?

Wayne, when I read posts like this it appears to me that many are drinking the Kool-Aid.

I'm like Adam, I believe that this 2♣ gadget has caught on because the continuations over 1♠ are a lot less defined. I agree with Ken that they are 'muddled', but no less than muddled than bidding a 3 card suit before a 4 card suit.

What needs to happen is not the development of a 2♣ response and its follow-ups, but better follow-ups after 1x - 2y - 2(non-reverse) x or z.

[sceptic]

Adam is right my continuations over 1H 1S are probably crap and need working on

[helene_t]

2♣ is weird.

2♥ is fine. You probably don't have the values for 3♥.

4♥ is reasonable if 2♥ guarantees 3. (Some players occasionaly bid 2♥ with a doubleton as a sort of waiting bid). The ideal hand for 4♥ is a 2-6-4-1. Responder will not expect a spade control, but I think 4♥ limits your values while 3♥ leaves both hands unlimited, thereby making slam exploration difficult.

It's ok with me that N asked for aces. After all, the 2♦ bid did improve his hand.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Aug 10 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

What needs to happen is not the development of a 2♣ response and its follow-ups, but better follow-ups after 1x - 2y - 2(non-reverse) x or z.

You cannot accomplish that sufficiently, IMO.

The simple reality is that a 2♣ call here makes the resulting auction tremendous. And easy.

Your objection, and others, to that specific call seems odd to me, frankly. You are comfortable opening 1♣ or 1♦ with a hand that is either balanced without a five-card major OR unbalanced with that minor as an anchor, a start that does not show GF vales and a start that is extremely more often subject to inference than a 1M-P-2♣ sequence.

Do you give up on 5-card majors because minor openings create muddled auctions that require checkback and the like? Of course not.

How much less complicated would a 1♣ opening be if it promised either 5+ clubs and 0-2 spades OR 3+ clubs with 3+ spades, but only the latter if Opener KNOWS that Responder has 5+ spades?

Instead, you want to somehow restructure the entire bidding structure so that somehow 1♥-P-1♠-P-not2♠-P-? can easily get to an agreement for hearts as trumps and GF, a task that is simply not all that easy, considering all of the ba-zillion other things that you need to do here.

Drink your own cool-aid, man!

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Aug 10 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

2♣ is weird.

...

It's ok with me that N asked for aces. After all, the 2♦ bid did improve his hand.

I'm on the floor, reaching up to my keyboard, because my stomach keeps hurting so much when I really think about this.

It seems that many of the vehement objectors to 2♣ by the North hand are perfectly fine with a 4NT call by Responder and are perfectly willing to admit to ending up at the five-level.

When do repeated bad results ever sink in?

Why is there so much hostility to a simple idea, like bidding 2♣ in situations like present, with claims of muddling auctions? Have you tried this out and ended up at the five-level down one a lot? I have not. But, NOT using this approach seems to have that result.

Y'all sound like someone banging a hammer into your respective heads who is telling the other person, not banging a hammer into his head, that he really should wear a helmet on his head, to protect himself.

[skjaeran]

I agree that there's many upsides to 2♣ instead of 1♠.

But I've got two objections.
1. Opener doesn't know if you've got a real ♣ suit or not. This might be very important in some potential slam auctions, since opener need to know if there's a source of tricks. You don't always come to 12 tricks on hands with just one top loser.
2. I don't rebid 2♠ as opener after 1♥-2♣ without reversing values (a good 14-count or better). Thus, bypassing 1♠ will preempt our auction on some hands (opener rebids 2NT.)

Objection no. 2 isn't a big issue, since we're not in a GF auction after 1♥-1♠-2♠. No.1 IS a problem. I'm sure it can be solved.

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Aug 11 2007, 03:37 AM, said:

I agree that there's many upsides to 2♣ instead of 1♠.

But I've got two objections.
1. Opener doesn't know if you've got a real ♣ suit or not. This might be very important in some potential slam auctions, since opener need to know if there's a source of tricks. You don't always come to 12 tricks on hands with just one top loser...

No.1 IS a problem. I'm sure it can be solved.

The way that it is "solved" depends upon the specific auction that follows.

In many occasions, Responder may tell the tale himself, by making a picture jump, at least as I play. Thus, he might show club length with a COV and with either 5422 or a side stiff.

In many occasions, however, it is not strictly necessary that Opener know. Responder often has the major unknown -- the trick source on the side or lack thereof. Because the cuebidding style (show queens in partner's suit) is so well-tuned, Responder will gather the info needed to make decisions.

Consider the actual auction. Opener will make cues that help Responder know the solidity of his clubs, if he actually has a trick source there. Responder will make cues that help Opener assess the solidity of his diamonds, if Opener really has a trick source there. That information will help each side decide whether they themselves are "serious" when reaching the 3NT point.

I'll grant that it seems to me to work best when you don't waste an entire level of bidding on "patterning out" but instead start cues immediately (unless making picture jumps), which is what playing both 2♣ and 2♦ as possible advanced cues is all about.

But, the bottom line on this is that Opener does not really "need to know." In auctions where Opener cannot know what to do because of this ambiguity, Opener's efforts at describing his hand to Responder will enable Responder to make the decision, and Responder knows what he has in clubs.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Aug 10 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 10 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

What needs to happen is not the development of a 2♣ response and its follow-ups, but better follow-ups after 1x - 2y - 2(non-reverse) x or z.

You cannot accomplish that sufficiently, IMO.

The simple reality is that a 2♣ call here makes the resulting auction tremendous. And easy.

Your objection, and others, to that specific call seems odd to me, frankly. You are comfortable opening 1♣ or 1♦ with a hand that is either balanced without a five-card major OR unbalanced with that minor as an anchor, a start that does not show GF vales and a start that is extremely more often subject to inference than a 1M-P-2♣ sequence.

Do you give up on 5-card majors because minor openings create muddled auctions that require checkback and the like? Of course not.

How much less complicated would a 1♣ opening be if it promised either 5+ clubs and 0-2 spades OR 3+ clubs with 3+ spades, but only the latter if Opener KNOWS that Responder has 5+ spades?

Instead, you want to somehow restructure the entire bidding structure so that somehow 1♥-P-1♠-P-not2♠-P-? can easily get to an agreement for hearts as trumps and GF, a task that is simply not all that easy, considering all of the ba-zillion other things that you need to do here.

Drink your own cool-aid, man!

Ken, there's nothing in your post that indicates that 1x - 1y - 2x/2z is a difficult sequence to overcome. No one hasn't spent much time on this concept, but there's been some interesting developments in the past few years. I still posit that if this sequence was better developed, then no one would be bringing up the concept of a short 2♣ response.

IMO your post brings up some interesting points, but using 2♣ to show this balanced hand type is backwards to the principle of 5 card majors. The only thing you gain (while using slightly extra space) is the ability to immediately convey GF values. Here, you use the short 2♣ response as the foundation of a response structure and compare it to the effectiveness of 5 card majors, in lieu of (in this case anyway) responding with a perfectly natural, forcing, 1♠ response.

A short minor is necessary to open 5 card majors. Its a casualty to the system, like a short 2♦ opening in Precision. No one sits down and says, "wouldn't it be great if a 2♦ opener was short in diamonds, and showed undetermined length in the other suits"? Like the thread that discussed whether or not you are happy or unhappy when you open with xxx, the 1 minor opening is not very descriptive. Now you are suggesting that a 2♣ response, that could be short, when other natural, forcing alternatives are available, is a superior way of handling these hands.

[mikeh]

I almost posted earlier... a post in which I almost agreed with Ken in terms of one of his comments

In terms of who was to blame, it was North for that 4N call... but it is a question of style, and if N expected a sound opener, then it was either nobody's fault or shared.

For me, assuming that 2♣ was acceptable, and I will return to this later, the auction then goes 2♦ 2♥, and we come to another fork in the road.

Those who use 2♥ as setting trump, and I think Ken is in this group, should see the auction, in my view, as going 4♥ all pass: 4♥ is a slow-down bid. It is the call one makes with a bad hand... not merely 'nothing special', but a bad hand in context, and despite the Qx of ♣, this hand has NO interest in slam unless partner has a monster, and that's what 4♥ says. This is where I almost agree with Ken... but I don't use rules such as what my response to keycard would be. I suspect, however, that he and I would bid 4♥ mostly on the same hands, rule or judgement.

As for me, I don't like 2♥ setting trump. I don't merely 'occasionally' give perference: I frequently give preference. For me, will prefer back to 2♥ unless I have a better call.

Give me xxx Ax KQx AJxxx, and this is an automatic 2♥, and, frankly, I don't understand any other call, with the exception of perhaps a stall of 2♠.

So for me, opener has an easy 3♦ rebid over 2♥, patterning out, with no suggestion of extra values (nor any denial of them). Responder confirms real hearts via 3♥ and now opener makes the weakness bid of 4♥.

It is critical for the partnership to understand what opener's cuebids (or 3N) mean after 3♥. If you play that opener needs extras to cue below game, then you are in trouble with this kind of fit. If, however, you use the first cuebid to announce that you are not ashamed of your hand and are prepared either to drive the hand or to cooperate, then 4♥ sends a powerful message.

So switch to responder. The key is the xxx in hearts. It is IMPOSSIBLE to construct a 5-5 red hand where slam is playable and opener bid 4♥. You NEED a minimum of AKQxx Axxxx... .and no bridge player with a pulse would bid 4♥ on that, opposite a (mild) slam try 3♥ bid.

Now back to the debate over 2♣ or 1♠.

I see the idea behind 2♣, and we recently had a thread devoted to it, altho, if I recall, the hand that triggered the discussion was 4=4 in the blacks. This 4=3 blacks is an extension.

At that time I observed that I had for years played, in one partnership, 2♣ as an artificial gf, and that worked very well.. but it is far too complex for any but the most dedicated partnership... it was a relay method.

The problem with std, as has been pointed out, is the need to bid 3♣ FSF, which leads, often, to problems. What if opener bids 3N?

And what if opener is a minimum 2=5=4=2 with bad hearts and no spade stopper? What does he bid...3♦ or 3♥?

And so on.

And, as Ken pointed out, there would appear to be no easy way to 'improve' our auctions over 1♥ 1♠ 2♦. We could use 2N as a forcing bid, on the basis that it will be rare that we ever want to play exactly 2N, but then what do we do with 10 or 11 count 4-1-3-5 hands over 2♦?

So there are obvious merits to 2♣.

The downside is that use of 2♣ in this fashion would appear to result in the assumption of captaincy by responder in all auctions, while many, many constructive auctions benefit from NO captaincy in the early stages. 2♣ as artificial essentially robs opener of the ability to exercise judgement on many hands.

Furthermore, it is not exactly a panacea.

Let's look at opener with 2=5=2=4. xx QJxxx Kx AJxx

What is he to bid over 2♣?

He can't make the natural, descriptive call of 3♣.. .or, more accurately, if he does, the partnership is at the 3-level with neither side having exchanged much information, while the staid traditionalists have bid 1♥ 1♠ 2♣.

Which side is further ahead?

And if we don't allow opener to raise 2♣ to 3♣ without 5 cards or (a more likely limit) values for a high-level reverse, we are forcing opener to rebid a bad 5 card heart suit, and the auction will almost certainly thereafter be far more opaque than had we permitted responder to bid 1♠.

So I fear that, as so often happens, those espousing a new treatment have focussed on the hands on which the treatment works, and have (so far in this and the earlier thread) ignored those on which the traditional approach is better.

Obviously, the question of whether the artificial 2♣ is superior DESPITE the problems I have just identified is open to debate... but I am not convinced by arguments setting out the weaknesses of the traditional approach and the benefits of the newer... as if the newer had no flaws.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Aug 11 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

Now back to the debate over 2♣ or 1♠.

...there are obvious merits to 2♣....

The downside is that use of 2♣ in this fashion would appear to result in the assumption of captaincy by responder in all auctions, while many, many constructive auctions benefit from NO captaincy in the early stages. 2♣ as artificial essentially robs opener of the ability to exercise judgement on many hands.

Furthermore, it is not exactly a panacea.

Let's look at opener with 2=5=2=4. xx QJxxx Kx AJxx

What is he to bid over 2♣?

He can't make the natural, descriptive call of 3♣.. .or, more accurately, if he does, the partnership is at the 3-level with neither side having exchanged much information, while the staid traditionalists have bid 1♥ 1♠ 2♣.

Which side is further ahead?

And if we don't allow opener to raise 2♣ to 3♣ without 5 cards or (a more likely limit) values for a high-level reverse, we are forcing opener to rebid a bad 5 card heart suit, and the auction will almost certainly thereafter be far more opaque than had we permitted responder to bid 1♠.

So I fear that, as so often happens, those espousing a new treatment have focussed on the hands on which the treatment works, and have (so far in this and the earlier thread) ignored those on which the traditional approach is better.

Obviously, the question of whether the artificial 2♣ is superior DESPITE the problems I have just identified is open to debate... but I am not convinced by arguments setting out the weaknesses of the traditional approach and the benefits of the newer... as if the newer had no flaws.

You are looking at this somewhat backwards. You are assuming that 2♣ shows five+ clubs, then assuming a rebid structure for opener within those parameters, and then de-assuming the five+ clubs, seeing a problem. It is somewhat an illusory argument.

Take the 2524 "problem." First of all, with Kx in clubs, I'd actually bid 2♦ as Opener, but that may be a tad out there for some.

So, assume a "normal" 3♣. There reallu is not a problem here. If Responder bids anything but 3♥, he agrees that clubs is the focus suit. He "reaffirms" the club suit, and all is normal.

If Responder bids 3♥, clubs remain unknown, to one side of the partnership. But, our focus is now on hearts, unambiguously. What has transpired is that Opener has clarified his position, and he will make the first new cue. Because his pattern is so well known, and because he is making the first new cue, Responder will always be better placed, it seems, to guage the hand when Responder does have a trick source, real clubs.

[cherdano]

In my mind, the bid you want to make with the North hand (unless you have been brain-washed by 20 years of Jacoby 2NT) is a natural GF, 2N. I really like the agreement to put a natural 2N bid into the 2♣ bid. Unlike Ken, my follow-up agreements are used to sort out the different hand-types, not to set trumps early so we can start cue-bidding at the 2-level.

E.g. on this hand we would bid 1H 2C 2D (any minimum) 2N (was a balanced GF) 3D 3H (setting trumps) 4D (bidding out shape) 4H (for slam to be good, South would need ♥AKQ ♦A and a red jack, which wouldn't be sold as a minimum).

Of course, North wasn't able to show his best feature on this auction (♠KQxx), but on the other hand on auctions that start 1H 1S, he won't be able to show his hand type (balanced).

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Aug 11 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

And, as Ken pointed out, there would appear to be no easy way to 'improve' our auctions over 1♥ 1♠ 2♦.

Actually there is one.
1♥ p 2♠ = 6 spades, less than invitational (so any hand that would have bid 1♠ then 2♠)
1♥ p 1♠ p 2♦ p 2♠ = artificial game force.

To be honest I'm not so sure how well this method works with 1♠ = 4+ since I have only played it with 1♠ = forcing notrump hand, 0-4 spades and 1NT = 5+ spades. But with perhaps slight reworkings it certainly seems to be one possible alternative solution.

Quote

The downside is that use of 2♣ in this fashion would appear to result in the assumption of captaincy by responder in all auctions, while many, many constructive auctions benefit from NO captaincy in the early stages.

When responder bids 2♣ on a balanced hand with 4 spades and 3 or 4 clubs, his next bid will always be one of
1) notrump rebid
2) support opener's first suit
3) support opener's second suit
These all lead to extremely simple auctions. In terms of captaincy, the balanced hand can (in general) always function well as captain while the hand opposite continues to describe.

Quote

Furthermore, it is not exactly a panacea.

Let's look at opener with 2=5=2=4. xx QJxxx Kx AJxx

What is he to bid over 2♣?

He can't make the natural, descriptive call of 3♣.. .or, more accurately, if he does, the partnership is at the 3-level with neither side having exchanged much information, while the staid traditionalists have bid 1♥  1♠  2♣.

Which side is further ahead?

Well, it's not clear at all.
1♥ 1♠
2♣ 2♦
2NT 3♥

vs.

1♥ 2♣
3♣ 3♥

Both have established the fit and the game force at the same level, so as far as the "big picture" there doesn't seem to be much to choose between them. It's true the first auction has given more information about opener's hand (diamond stopper, not 3 spades), but against that sometimes opener's third bid will have to be misdescriptive anyway, like xx KQxxx xx AQxx, so that auction can work out worse too.

I know "never" and "always" are both either lies or selective memory symptoms when they are used in bridge arguments. But I can say with an absolutely straight face I can not remember one single time, not one, that I have regretted responding 2♣ on a hand where the traditional response was 1♠. I can remember one time my partner regretted it, but he was 5323 so I did not agree with his bid anyway (it turned out we belonged in spades.) I really feel this is one of those things that once you try it, you'll never go back.

[the hog]

Unless you are playing a relay structure, where 2C is a GF relay, then put me into the 1S camp. And "yes", I have played 2C as described in Wayne's post and gone back to a natural structure.

The problem, as has been pointed out by Roland and other posters, is that opener will never know whether the C suit was a real one or not. This leads to innumerable problems when attempting to evaluate a holding such as Hx or similar.

I also agree that 2H setting trumps is not optimal, in fact it is a method that I personally detest. 3H setting trumps followed by Serious/non serious is my preferred method.