[Zelandakh]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 4 2008, 06:03 AM, said:

Your hand (along with many others) is a good example of why _some form_ of structure after a 2/1 is a good idea, and in particular why both hands need a way to ask rather than show.  As has been said, it's odd that there seems to be so little theory on continuations after a 2/1.

I play that step 1 by opener is the 'catch-all', with step 1 by responder after that a relay.

♠ KQTxx
♥ Kx
♦ KTxxx
♣ x

♠ x
♥ AJT8xxx
♦ Ax
♣ KQx

If you are going to the extent of incorporating a relay structure, why not just go the whole hog?

eg
1♠ - 1NT ..... 5+ spades // relay
2♣ - 2♦ ..... min without 4 hearts // GF relay
2NT - 3♣ ..... 5+ diamonds // relay
3♥ - 3♠ ..... 5=2=5=1 // relay
4♣ - 4♥ ..... 3 Blue Team controls // better stop here

It strikes me that when you're getting to relay methods the system ceases to really be 2/1 any more, but rather some sort of hybrid. Also, if you want to use a catch-all, you could do worse than to turn it round and have it come from Responder, using 1M - 2♣ - look up Bocchi - Duboin's system notes for some minimal relays that hang together to produce an excellent whole. They don't play this as a GF though, at least not last time I vugraphed them...


(-: Zel :-)

[irdoz]

This is a perspective from someone whose regular partnership levels could be described as ranging from garbage to close to advanced+.

From the bbo random persepective the most common method is simply to play 2M rebids as minmum 6+ and higher level reverses as just showing shape and not promising extras. Of course, played at this level, this method is inferior when both hands are in the 15-17 range as you languish in 3nt while precision bidders bid their 6nt. However, for BBO random standards it works fine for finding the right strain and often makes responders rebids easier so it isnt all bad.

Next is the semi-regular partner/friend who you've actually discussed a few things with - so you decide to play what's recommended in BBO standard advanced 2/1 where a rebid of 2M is just a holding bid with a 5M+ (if 6 not good enough suit for 3M). Good idea - but you suddenly discover that most basic 2/1 descriptions lack further system description over this 2M catch-all holding bid - and without having 2nt being a responder relay where opener clarifies his hand then Im not sure how you play this method satisfactorily -and you wish 2/1 had better documented commonly agreed sequences after this 2M holding catch all, which exist in the expert community but are not as easily accessed at this level.

Then in your most regular partnership which has graduated from the garbage youve looked at a whole lot of methods and find threads like this illuminating.
So you look at Nightmare, Ambra and even Bocchi-Duboin for examples of different 2/1 structures and there they also use catch-all bids for openers first rebid - but after 1M-2m it is usually the next step - and in Ambra and Nightmare 2nt is 15 or 16+ showing a variety of hands (this seems potentially a lot better than wasting space with 2M and 2nt both min/max bids). And in all of these systems theres responder initiated relay sequences (complex in Bocchi-Duboins case, simple in Nightmare and a lot of them in Ambra although they have the same structure). But all of them have space problems with 1s-2h (although ambra does a fiddle swapping the meanings of 1s-2d and 1s-2h auctions)... but it does seem incorporating some other methods into 2/1 would improve clarifying openers min/non-min at the lowest level and giving responder the ability to take control would be a big improvement to the way my partnerships 2/1 system currently stands.

[whereagles]

Well, the point of the 2M/2NT catch-alls is to allow both players to sieze/relinquish control when they see fit. And yes, I agree we need more systematics in 2/1 GF auctions. The situation is ripe for someone to come in and do that work.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Mar 6 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

I have often said I think this really depends on which hand you expect to be the stronger hand in a 2/1 auction.

1) If you expect opener to be the stronger hand very often.....then...perhaps catch all rebids are more important....
2) If you expect responder to be the stronger hand very often ...then......perhaps catch all rebids are far less important....

You seem to be making an assumption that the stronger hand should ask and the weaker hand should show. From my own perspective, its much more desirable that the balanced hand is able to ask and that the unbalanced hand shows.

In part, this might also address some of Frances concerns about bidding space:

Frances noted that there is much less space available after 1♠ - 2♥ as opposed to 1♠ - 2♣

There might be some advantages in using 2♣ to show any balanced hand. (Perhaps even responding 2♣ with a 2=5=3=3 or some such). In turn, the immediate 2♥ would now promise either a genuine single suiter or a two suiter.