[helene_t]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 29 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

Playing SAYC, I am pretty 2C in this sequence
promises ta least 4 cards, hence most likely
2NT could be based on just 3 card support.

2N promises 4-card support. So you tell the smallest lie, i.e. you lie about the length of a minor rather than a major.

[han]

I don't play that 2C shows 4 so it is not a lie. I've never played this with anybody.

[jtfanclub]

han, on May 2 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

I don't play that 2C shows 4 so it is not a lie. I've never played this with anybody.

It's not a lie, it's just...pointless. There are certainly hands with only 3 clubs that I'd bid 2♣ with. This isn't one of them.

Seriously, if you bid 1NT forcing here instead, what is it that you think you're losing?

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on May 3 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

han, on May 2 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

I don't play that 2C shows 4 so it is not a lie. I've never played this with anybody.

It's not a lie, it's just...pointless. There are certainly hands with only 3 clubs that I'd bid 2♣ with. This isn't one of them.

Seriously, if you bid 1NT forcing here instead, what is it that you think you're losing?

The ability to investigate rather than guess at the contract at your second turn.

[P_Marlowe]

jdonn, on May 3 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 3 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

han, on May 2 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

I don't play that 2C shows 4 so it is not a lie. I've never played this with anybody.

It's not a lie, it's just...pointless. There are certainly hands with only 3 clubs that I'd bid 2♣ with. This isn't one of them.

Seriously, if you bid 1NT forcing here instead, what is it that you think you're losing?

The ability to investigate rather than guess at the contract at your second turn.

Well I would say, that the main difference
between 1NT and 2C is, that 2C shows and
1NT asks.

Just because you bid 1NT does not mean you
have to guess next round, sometimes partners
next bid will remove the guess.

Equally just because you bid 2C, which partner
may or may not take as a 4 carder, does not
mean you dont have a guess next round.
... I seem to recall that in certain auctions a 2C
game forcing response gots raised on 3 cards,
happy guessing in this sequence, or did we just
transfer the guess to partner?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on May 3 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

The ability to investigate rather than guess at the contract at your second turn.

Well, maybe the way I play it isn't standard.

For me 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 3NT

shows a balanced hand with 3 spades and 13-15 hcp. I don't know how the investigation will go if I start with 2♣, but I don't think it's going to give more detail than that. What would that auction show for you?

It seems to me that the only problematic bid is 2♥, where partner may think my 4♥ call is based on heart length and not a balanced strong hand. But after 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♥, isn't my partner going to be wondering if I have club length?

What specific sort of hand are you worried about opener having where ifyou don't investigate that you're likely to make the wrong guess?

[the hog]

jdonn, on May 4 2008, 02:08 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 3 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

han, on May 2 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

I don't play that 2C shows 4 so it is not a lie. I've never played this with anybody.

It's not a lie, it's just...pointless. There are certainly hands with only 3 clubs that I'd bid 2♣ with. This isn't one of them.

Seriously, if you bid 1NT forcing here instead, what is it that you think you're losing?

The ability to investigate rather than guess at the contract at your second turn.

Can you explain this please? If your fnt systemically includes the ability to show 1 balanced 3 card gf raise, why would you be guessing the contract?

Mind you, I personaly prefer 2C over 1M as a gf relay, but that is another story altogether.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on May 3 2008, 08:09 PM, said:

Can you explain this please? If your fnt systemically includes the ability to show 1 balanced 3 card gf raise, why would you be guessing the contract?

Were I to say something like that to my father, his response would be "If my Aunt Sally had wheels, she'd be a stagecoach." I can think of no better answer in this case.

Well ok, I found one better answer.

jtfanclub, on May 3 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

Well, maybe the way I play it isn't standard.

[han]

No there are more answers possible Josh. One is that by including this hand pattern you will have mor difficulty showing your hand if partner next makes a strong bid. Another is that you will have difficulty showing your hand if one of the opponents enters the bidding, especially if they are at the 3-level before you can bid.

These days many people like to play that 1NT is not forcing, even though it can contain 11- or 12-point hands. Obviously that isn't playable if partner can have a gameforcing raise.

I'd say that the 1NT response already contains quite a lot of different hand types. Putting more hands into it won't make it easier to catch up. So I'd say that there is a reason that what JT plays is not standard. It has been considered by many people and rejected.

I don't think that JT cares, he probably thinks that all of these arguments are "pointless".

[jtfanclub]

han, on May 3 2008, 08:33 PM, said:

I don't think that JT cares, he probably thinks that all of these arguments are "pointless".

Always good to know what I am thinking. I am indebted for your help.

I play what I was taught. For the most part, I have no idea what is and isn't standard.
So finding out whether what I learned is standard is very important to me.

But hey, if you can get a shot in, why should the truth stop you?

[Winstonm]

I'm with Ron, 4S on first, taking the underbid, and 1N forcing on #2.

The methods are far from best, IMO.

[the hog]

The reason I posted what I did was not particularly because I agree with JT; in fact I have found myself disagreeing with most of his posts.

When I used to play Matula's version of Polish Club, (and "yes", I do know this is the 2/1 forum, but that is largely irrelevant because the methods over 1M he espouses are just as easily played in a 2/1 system), the sequence
1M 1NT 2m 3NT showed 13-15 bal dbt support.
Conversely 1M 1NT 2m 4M showed 13-15 3 card support precisely.

This worked fairly well ad didn't seem to result in any losses - anecdotal evidence here only. I do remember one hand though where we had a 5-3 M suit fit and a 4-4 m suit fit. We played in 4M making 11. the m contract would have made 12. No guarantee we would have reached it though.

Mind you we shortly after switched to a 2C gfr over 1M for various reasons, efficiency being one, fun the other.

[han]

jtfanclub, on May 3 2008, 08:38 PM, said:

I play what I was taught. For the most part, I have no idea what is and isn't standard.
So finding out whether what I learned is standard is very important to me.

But hey, if you can get a shot in, why should the truth stop you?

You admit you hardly know what you are talking about. On the other hand, you do know what the truth is and you do know that playing 2C as 3+ is pointless. Is that consistent?

[dicklont]

1. 4♠
I don't want to make partner over-enthousiastic with a 2NT MF raise.
I don´t understand so many here choose 2NT, partner could be disappointed with this weakish hand, especially when he ends in 5♠ one off.

2. 3NT
In all my partnerships this is 13-15 and a completely flat hand (no doubleton).
So this is a genuine WTP hand.

[inquiry]

1. 2NT (Jacoby plus)
2. 3NT (three card fit, balanced hand, 13-15 hcp)

[jtfanclub]

han, on May 4 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

You admit you hardly know what you are talking about. On the other hand, you do know what the truth is and you do know that playing 2C as 3+ is pointless. Is that consistent?

You know, before insulting me, you could actually read what you're trying to insult.

I write a post saying that I play 2♣ here as 3+, and in your reply you say I think that playing 2♣ as 3+ is pointless. That's just brilliant.

How about you just leave replying to my posts to the people who actually read them.

[blewah]

1) 3♦ (Bergen), then pull P's 3♠ to 4♠. If he doesn't bid 3♠, I would be pleased to entertain P's slam-try.

2) 1NT (fcg), then 3NT.
But I'm not a big fan of this method, as some of you pointed out, the wide range of 1NT (fcg) response can be tricky for many situations. I like playing 1NT (semi-fcg) and employ:
2) 3NT, 13-15, 3 card support BAL no 5 card minor.