[SoTired]

The current methodology used by most 2/1 players is that 4th suit is GF and jumps are invitational.

But I know many top experts that play all jumps forcing, and, of those, many still play 4th suit GF.

Although this appears to screw you if you have the invitational hand without a clear option, I think the philosophy is that if you are GF with something to say (long suit or fit with partner), the ability to say that immediately and put both partners on the same page is more important than having many pinpoint invitational bids.

To quote Kit Woolsey, "The best game-try is to bid game and try to make it."

[jwmonty]

AWM wrote:

"I think that this is where the insults started, to be honest. The suggestion is that Elianna and I need to 'learn to bid better' and that our bidding would improve if we bid your way. I think that implies that you think you're a better bidder?"

I don't agree with any of this. I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone, nor do I think I did so inadvertently. If any statement along the lines of 'I play A and you play B, and I think A is better' is to be taken as insulting, it becomes difficult to engage in civil discussions while expressing disagreement. Nor do I say that I am a better bidder than anyone in particular, although I do think I know something about bidding. I suppose it is possible to interpret any expression of disagreement as a statement that anyone who holds a different view is wrong, therefore in need of education, but most people don't take it that way.

I appreciate that you give arguments and examples to show why you play a different way than I do. None of what you say is untrue in its particulars, and indeed, I knew about these problems and others when I adopted the style I use. Any style or system is going to have soft spots, categories of hands where it does not work as well as it does on others. What is important is how it works in the long run over the entire universe of deals you will encounter. Many years of experience have convinced me that avoiding the natural, nonforcing rebid of 2C whenever possible keeps you out of a lot of trouble. It is a bid you don't want to use unless you have to.

I'm not the only one who thinks this way (although it is a minority view). Al Roth thought so little of the auction 1D-1M, 2C that in Picture Bidding, he tried to redefine the 2C rebid as quasi-natural (could be three cards), guaranteeing extra values, and forcing for one round. Bill Cole, in inventing the Cole 2C convention, made the bid totally artificial. I trust you will agree that both of them knew what they were doing and had reasons for doing it, even if you don't use their methods.

If you have or can get hold of a copy of the November 1983 issue of The Bridge World, you will find it interesting reading. In the You Be The Judge feature on page 23, the following pair of hands is given:

K10542
QJ1043
3
95

9
765
AQ95
AQ843

The players who actually held these hands bid 1D-1S; 2C-2H; 2NT-3H; 4H-P. There was considerable disagreement about what went wrong and what should have been done differently. Edgar Kaplan observed that the auction had begun with "the most awkward common sequence in standard bidding -- one-diamond opening, major response, two-club rebid." He suggested 1C-1S, 1NT-2H, P. Which is the auction I would have, except that the opening bid would be 1D. (If you don't like the 1D opening, either because of shape or weakness, add a point and move a small club into the diamond suit; you will have an auto 1D opening, and facing responder's actual hand, the problems will be the same. And yes, I do know that some people avoid this problem by playing reverse Flannery responses.)

So you can add Kaplan's name to those of Roth and Cole as part of the faction that isn't crazy about the 1D/2C auction. Of course, when you actually hold these problem hands you have to bid something. For me, that something is 1D followed by 1NT. Kind of like what Alan Sontag did in a world championship when he held Q/A9xx/Jxx/AKJxx. I have found that using the 1NT rebid as a dumping ground for all of these problem hands is an approach that works quite well in practice, better than anything else I have tried. Sure, it's not perfect, but if something were perfect the hands wouldn't be problem hands in the first place. This is not something that can be proved true or false through armchair analysis. Only experience can tell you what works best. My experience tells me rebidding 1NT instead of 2C when you have a choice is what works. I don't think it is close, either.

Although it is not necessary to understand why it works best -- if something works, it works, even if you do not understand the underlying reasons -- I am pretty sure of a couple of the reasons. One is that a final contract of 1NT (if that is where you end up) tends to score very well. It is much harder to defend, by a wide margin, than two of a suit (and this is even more true when declarer can have a lot of different shapes; the defenders won't know your hand for a long time). Another, and probably the more important one, is that a 1NT rebid serves as a launching pad for a wide variety of forcing and invitational auctions, many more than are available after a 2C rebid, whatever your methods are for advancing the 2C bid. Jlall said a while back (sorry, can't find it among his millions of posts) something to the effect that his idea of good bidding methods is lots of ways to look for the best games and slams, and that he really doesn't care about getting to contracts of 2D. Which is not to say that he would agree with me in the present dispute, but I agree with his general approach. Modern Precision is not designed to reach partscores with the greatest degree of accuracy. It is not particularly designed to find minor suit spots. It is about games and slams. That's how I try to bid, and my methods are biased in that direction.

I don't expect you to change your mind because of anything I say here. After all, you've read my book, and if that didn't do it, fair enough. And your view falls into the mainstream of expert thinking, which mine does not. But know this: I'm just as aware as you are of the potential pluses and minuses of my approach, and of yours as well, and I'm satisfied that in actual play, mine works best. That's why I play it. Not because I'm smarter or better than you or anyone else, but rather because after many years of experimenting with pretty much every method on the market that is legal in ACBL play, I managed to stumble into an approach to constructive bidding that is at least reasonable on the vast majority of hands you pick up in the real world. Take my word for it, achieving results that even qualify as decent is more difficult than most people think. At least (and at last) I've learned to manage that much.

[mike777]

"But I know many top experts that play all jumps forcing, and, of those, many still play 4th suit GF."

I just ran into this last month..now here..wow....once is an aberation.....twice may be a trend.

[mike777]

"If you have or can get hold of a copy of the November 1983 issue of The Bridge World, you will find it interesting reading. In the You Be The Judge feature on page 23, the following pair of hands is given:

K10542
QJ1043
3
95

9
765
AQ95
AQ843"



You may be making a very good point and I just missed it.
Sure Roth passes the south hand and says wtp or bbo forum members
reverse flannery the north hand

so...I missed your point?

[awm]

In fact my auction on the example hand would be 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♥ also. It's not rebidding 1NT with a singleton that I have a problem with. I do think that raising with balanced hands including 3-card support and a doubleton on the side helps here, since if 1♣-1♠-1NT could be rebid on singleton, responder can't go bidding 2♠ "to play" on a weak hand with five spades.

My major issues are with the idea that a 1NT rebid should have a huge range (say 12-16 in standard, or 11-15 in a big club) just so that we can rebid 1NT with all the potential problem hands with singleton that exist. I think that adopting this wider range will make our bidding a lot worse on the 1NT rebid hands, because now we have to invite with hands that would pass when the 1NT rebid has a tighter range.

Of course, you can counter (as you did in your book) with the comment that 1♦-1♠-2♣ has a huge range and people cope, so how is it such a big problem for the 1NT rebid to have a huge range? There are two reasons. First, the 1♦-1♠-2♣ auction shows a lot about shape. Very often 2♦ will be an acceptable contract, and responder can preference to this contract without raising the level, giving opener a chance at another call with the stronger hands in the range. Over 1NT, there is no particular reason to think that any contract above 1NT is likely to be acceptable -- responder will much more frequently want to pass. Second, the reason that 1NT is a "launching pad" for a great variety of signoff bids is only partially because of the promise for support for the two unmentioned suits -- the tight range is also important here since responder can very frequently determine that he wants to sign off and not look for game.

My examples for the 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥ fourth suit sequence were a 14-count and a good 15-count. Add a jack to the first example if you want -- I think these examples will be beyond the 1NT rebid range that most people are playing. Surely some people will reply "well then I would open them 1NT" but there are many reasons why rebidding 1NT with singleton in partner's suit is a lot more palatable than opening 1NT with a random small singleton.

[han]

Strange discussion.

jwmonty, on Nov 28 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

AWM wrote:

"I think that this is where the insults started, to be honest. The suggestion is that Elianna and I need to 'learn to bid better' and that our bidding would improve if we bid your way. I think that implies that you think you're a better bidder?"

I don't agree with any of this.  I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone, nor do I think I did so inadvertently.

It seems you measure with two different cups because:

Quote

Elianna wrote:

"Learn to evaluate a hand in context, and not place so much emphasis on WHAT you bid as much as on what it SHOWS, and you see how quickly YOUR bidding improves.

My bidding in context of my system is fine. I don't mislead partner and cause him to get to the wrong contract."

Let's take your above sentences in turn.  The first one contains the (implied) assertion that you know how to do the things you say, and that I don't.  Assertions need to be backed up by arguments and evidence.  Yours aren't.

Just as much back-up as you gave. Maybe your arguments are in your book but if it is as well written as your posts here then you can't expect anybody to read the book.

Quote

If you have or can get hold of a copy of the November 1983 issue of The Bridge World, you will find it interesting reading.  In the You Be The Judge feature on page 23, the following pair of hands is given:

K10542
QJ1043
3
95

9
765
AQ95
AQ843

So you can add Kaplan's name to those of Roth and Cole as part of the faction that isn't crazy about the 1D/2C auction.  Of course, when you actually hold these problem hands you have to bid something.  For me, that something is 1D followed by 1NT.  Kind of like what Alan Sontag did in a world championship when he held Q/A9xx/Jxx/AKJxx.

On these hands there is no accurate rebid available so Sontag and Kaplan and Roth and Cole rebid 1NT as I'm 100% sure Adam would do as well. But on the hands that Adam gave there is no rebid problem, as you have 5 diamonds and 4 clubs, exactly what 1D-1M-2C shows. Don't you see that these hands are entirely different?

If you don't, I hope that you at least appreciate the nice boxes that I used, they make for easy reading. And for the record, Adam and I are not dating.

[vbalbi]

4th Colour Forcing is one of the 4 legs of Natural.
The other 3 being:
Economic bid principle
2 level save bid discouraging
Reverse two suited hand strong

4th colour forcing is a TOTEM and it is often misused.
There is no EXACT RULE and there is NOT "THE" perfect answer to your question
since Bridge is only a matter of Style.

4th colour covers too many a number of situations to be "regulated" as such.
(My Opinion).

But ask yourself a few questions:
Which are sequences in which I surely DO NOT NEED USE 4ht Colour Forcing?
Which are sequences yelding tough (or simly new) bidding difficulties?
Which is Partner feeling in those very situations?
Is the use of 4th CF a tools to eventually better agree with partner an escape path?

Bonne chances
vittorio

[jwmonty]

AWM wrote:

"My major issues are with the idea that a 1NT rebid should have a huge range (say 12-16 in standard, or 11-15 in a big club) just so that we can rebid 1NT with all the potential problem hands with singleton that exist."

You can say that the range is 12-16 or 11-15, but I don't. My practice, playing a Precision style, is to pass with 11 or a mediocre 12 points if the rebid is going to have to be 1NT over one or more of partner's possible responses. Often I will pass a hand short in spades that others might want to open (another Roth idea). So the range is effectively 3 1/2 points, not much wider than anyone else's.

"My examples for the 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥ fourth suit sequence were a 14-count and a good 15-count. Add a jack to the first example if you want -- I think these examples will be beyond the 1NT rebid range that most people are playing."

They aren't beyond the range Alan Sontag was playing when he held Q/A9xx/Jxx/AKJxx. If Hannie is to be believed, you and others would also rebid 1NT with that hand. So we are all effectively playing that a 1NT rebid can show a fifteen count (sixteen is impossible, at least for me, since Precision opens 1C with that), which means responder must invite with eleven or a good ten. I don't really believe there are all that many people out there who restrict their 1NT rebids to a range of 11-13 or 12-14 100% of the time. If they did, they would have to open and rebid in five-card suits or rebid in three-card suits on some hands, and I don't see them doing that. Or open 1NT with a singleton, which neither you nor I like and which few people actually do. (It might be interesting to know how many people would go that route if it were not so strongly disfavored by the ACBL and its tournament directors.)

[awm]

I think that there is a difference between 15 hcp with a singleton queen and a rebid problem:

♠Q ♥A9xx ♦Jxx ♣AKJxx

Versus 15 hcp with a small stiff, three aces, a decent second suit, and no rebid problem:

♠x ♥AJx ♦Axxxx ♣AQxx

I'd be tempted to rebid 1NT on the first after 1♣-1♠. I have no interest in rebidding 1NT on the second after 1♦-1♠.

[Tcyk]

AWM said:
1) Responder has to invite on as few as 11 points, which could easily mean reaching 2NT on 11 opposite 11. It also means your invitational range is quite wide since you have to invite with any hand that wants game opposite 15 and you can't force game with any hand where game is bad opposite 11. In your methods this means two different invite sequences (wasting sequences that could be used for something else).

I really don't want to enter into this discussion. I happen to believe the best bidding system is the one that you and your partner know. However, I was struck by the final parenthetical statement about wasting sequences. Bergen raises are a case in point. They are extremely popular with those playing 2/1 GF. These jumps to 3C and 3D can be put to better use such as limit jump shifts as advocated in Revision or fit jump shifts as used by Oliver Clarke Precision or weak jump shifts or game forcing jump shifts or ...

As far as fourth suit forcing, I have seen many cases where I wish the bid was natural, perhaps more often than when I would like it to be forcing to game. For this reason, I guess I have to agree with Inquiry, forcing to game if a reverse or at the 3-level otherwise, a 1-round force.

[foo]

Here's the fundamental trade-off:

If you use 4SF for Inv+ hands when you have enough room, your game bidding will be more accurate but slam bidding will suffer.

The opposite is true if all 4SF bids as GF. You get to use the sequences less, but when you do it conserves space for slam exploration.

An example of the potentially bad sequences are
1H-1S;2C-2D! vs 1H-1S;2C-2N

If the 1st is GF, then an Inv responder must use the 2nd whether they have 4??? or 5???. Which means when opener passes with a minimum We may play 2N with a 3:5 ♠ fit.

OTOH, if the 1st sequences is Inv+, We will more often get to our ♠ fit, and more ofen bid games based on that fit, but opener must jump rebid 3N with extras (...and what does opener do with a Max w/o support or stops in the 4th suit for NT?). This potentially cramps slam exploration auctions.

Particularly playing MPs instead of IMPs, better game bidding at the expense of slam bidding is worth it because MPs is a frequency game rather than a expected pay-off game.

(exploration of the implications of the other sequences left as an exercise for the reader. )