[gnasher]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 10:36 PM, said:

I sense that from 3S on there wasn't a definition of meanings.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. So far as I can recall, I've never discussed this particular 3NT bid or the subsequent auction with anyone. However, I don't regard that as a problem, particularly. In such a sequence one relies on logic, judgment, general agreements, shared experience and general bridge knowledge. I know what I thought each bid meant, and I'd be surprised if my partner's opinion differed significantly.

Quote

I doubt seriously if it was known when it was bid if 3N could have held singleton club.

3NT could clearly contain a singleton club. Anything else is unplayable.

Quote

I doubt if opener knew if over 5S he needed AKxxx, AK10xx, or 3 of the top 5 to bid a spade slam.

3♣ denied three spades. 5♠ showed a slam invitation with good enough spades to make 5♠ playable opposite a moderate five-card suit. Given that opener had ♠AK, responder's spade holding was likely to be QJ, Q10, J10 or perhaps Qx, depending on how good and how suit-oriented the rest of the hand was.

Quote

I doubt responder knew that 6C was a choice of slams with doubleton honor support and not Kx,  or KQ and poorish spades,  or if its was a Kx and grand slam try.

5NT would have offered a choice of slams, and would have included hands with ♣Kx. 6♣, as a stronger suggestion to play in clubs, implies something better than that.
Each player has just made a non-forcing game bid, so there is no question of treating 6♣ as a grand slam try.

Quote

I doubt opener knew about doubleton QJ else he would not have bid 6N with only AJ in the unbid.

6♠, as a further suggestion to play in the known 5-2 spade fit, can hardly be on a worse holding than QJ. I expect my partner bid 6NT because he thought that, in addition to ♠QJ and ♣A, I must have one of ♥Q and ♣J (♦Q would probably make responder too good for 5♠). Opposite either of these hands, 6NT is unlikely to be worse than 6♠, and would be better if spades were 5-1.

I agree that responder (me) might have bid 6NT himself, following a similar reasoning. On the other hand, that would be wrong opposite something like AK10xx Ax AKQx KJ.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I'm not quite sure what your point is. So far as I can recall, I've never discussed this particular 3NT bid or the subsequent auction with anyone. However, I don't regard that as a problem, particularly.

This is not a condemnation of you or your partner's bidding. I thought I made it clear that 1) I think 2C bidding in general is a weakness in all stong 2C systems and 2) increasing the preciseness of the system would only be of real interest to someone interested in world class competition. (It is a lot of hard work with not a great deal of benefit-to-reward ratio, so it may even be useless at world levels.)

But my only real contention is that there is a looseness in the framework of standard approaches to 2C bidding that is taken for granted (it seems) as non-solvable. I believe better methods should be able to be constructed, but may be too complex for casual or even fairly serious competition.

Anecdotal evidence of what I mean is that when the Dallas Aces formed Bobby Wolff partnered Jim Jacoby and played an extremely simple "seat of your pants" standard system - but were forced by Ira Corn to adopt a more structured system (a big club system) for team play as the goal was to win world team championships and he beleived more precise bidding was required.

That's all I am saying about all 2C systems - they seem imprecise, especially for high-level bridge.

[maggieb]

Gnasher recently represented England internationally, just so you know.

[Winstonm]

maggieb, on Feb 8 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

Gnasher recently represented England internationally, just so you know.

Congratulations and well done.

I would think that the partnership for that level of competition didn't sit down and simply agree on 2/1 (or whatever system) without some pretty tight agreements.

That's all I have said about the 2C structure - as it is played it does not have real tight agreements.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I sense that from 3S on there wasn't a definition of meanings. 


I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Actually, I left out a word that changes the meaning. What I intended to say was that I sense from 3S on there wasn't a tight definition of meanings. (One of the strongest reasons I come to this conclusion is because of the final choice to bid 6N with only AJ doubleton instead of playing 6S.

I may be all wet in the assumption, but it looks to me as if opener was not 100% clear he was looking at QJ of spades and that was the reason for the correction to 6N. It was more expecting or anticipating a heart card or heart values than real knowledge of the QJ of spades and the heart Q.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

6♠ would clearly not be a good bid with that. 6♦ is probably best.

[benlessard]

4H cannot be natural none of the players bid H as a 2nd suits. Its the only artificial bid that is below game. So for me its a clear multi purpose slam bid. It deosnt help partner focus on the right value but it manage to included partner in the process without busting the safety level.

[H_KARLUK]

Pass-2♣
2♦-2♠
(3♣)-3♦
3♠-3NT

http://dannykleinman.com/Documents/BRIDGE%...TWO%20CLUBS.pdf

Gnasher, which one you use ?

2♣:2♦:2♠:2NT as a "second negative" or 3♣ ?

Check out the book "Aces Scientific" by Goldman.
(copyright 1978) starting on p. 43 it gives 2C:2D:2S:3C as the second negative without discussion. Goldman gives 3C as a second negative (except over opener's 3C then he uses 3D). This has the advantage of not getting into NT with the weak hand as responder.

I hope no smart alecks interfere anymore and i receive an answer abt yr system card by you. I am bored to read "hey, we are ordinarius bridge professors (blah blah), no need to reply such novice (?) questions" alphabet soups.

Thanks
Hamdi

[FrancesHinden]

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2009, 05:24 AM, said:

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

ummm.... if partner has Qx xxx Qxx AJxxx then 6NT seems like a perfectly good spot to me, certainly better than 6S. We can debate quite a good a spot 7C is opposite that hand, but I think probably not quite good enough if the other table is not going to be in a slam at all.

[gnasher]

Regarding various comments and questions:

- I don't think that a slightly offbeat decision by the England selectors means that I have any special insight into the best way to conduct this sort of auction.

- My partner on this occasion was someone I play with only a few times a year, and with whom I had no relevant agreements beyond the meanings of 2C and 2D. It may well be that auctions after 2♣ tend to lack definition, but I don't think that was so here: notwithstanding the lack of space and limited agreements, opener was close to being able to write down responder's hand.

- I don't have a strong opinion about the best second negative after 2♣-2♦; 2♠. I do think it important to know which one you're playing.

[gnasher]

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2009, 06:24 AM, said:

What I intended to say was that I sense from 3S on there wasn't a tight definition of meanings.  (One of the strongest reasons I come to this conclusion is because of the final choice to bid 6N with only AJ doubleton instead of playing 6S. 

I may be all wet in the assumption, but it looks to me as if opener was not 100% clear he was looking at QJ of spades and that was the reason for the correction to 6N.  It was more expecting or anticipating a heart card or heart values than real knowledge of the QJ of spades and the heart Q.

So your belief is that if opener thought that spades were solid he would have passed 6♠, and he bid 6NT because he thought he had a spade loser?
Can you provide examples of:
(1) A responding hand containing ♠QJ where it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and
(2) A responding hand containing ♠Qx where' it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

Quote

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

The actual responding hand was very close to a slam drive. This hand, with the queens of both of opener's suits, is surely worth slam.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Feb 9 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

Regarding various comments and questions:

- I don't think that a slightly offbeat decision by the England selectors means that I have any special insight into the best way to conduct this sort of auction.

- My partner on this occasion was someone I play with only a few times a year, and with whom I had no relevant agreements beyond the meanings of 2C and 2D. It may well be that auctions after 2♣ tend to lack definition, but I don't think that was so here: notwithstanding the lack of space and limited agreements, opener was close to being able to write down responder's hand.

- I don't have a strong opinion about the best second negative after 2♣-2♦; 2♠. I do think it important to know which one you're playing.

I think you also knew that 3C was not a second negative.

At the other table, after the start 2C - 2D - 2S - 3C, opener alerted 3C and said he thought it was a second negative. After the auction continued ...3NT - 5S he changed his mind. I agree that knowing which you play is a good idea.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 9 2009, 02:48 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the auction is just as consistent with a responder who holds Qx, xxx, Qxx, AJxxx that the one shown.

6♠ would clearly not be a good bid with that. 6♦ is probably best.

Josh,

Back to my point. Without a "tight" understanding, how does responder know that opener holds AKxxx and not AKJxx?

If opener held AKJxx, then bidding 6S with Qx would not be bad.

There are other questions about the auction:

If opener had 6241 shape, would he bid 2S followed by 3D? If so, wouldn't he want partner to offer support with xx? If such is the case, then 3S cannot show more than xx, no?

What was the agreement?

With the above question in mind, does 3N show AKxxx or simply a hand that does not want to play 4S opposite xx (which would include AKJxx, I would think.)?

All I am saying is that most of us play 2C without much formal structure to it. (In the hand given all I said was I sense that this was the case here - meaning that my sense could also be wrong.)

Why is that so controversial?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Can you provide examples of:
(1) A responding hand containing ♠QJ where it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and
(2) A responding hand containing ♠Qx where' it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

I think so.
1) AK10xx, KJ, AKxx, KQ opposite QJ, xxx, Qxx, Axxxx
2) AKxxx, AK, KQJx, KQ opposite Qx, Qxx, xx, AJxxx

[gnasher]

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

Quote

Can you provide examples of:
(1) A responding hand containing ♠QJ where it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and
(2) A responding hand containing ♠Qx where' it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

I think so.
1) AK10xx, KJ, AKxx, KQ opposite QJ, xxx, Qxx, Axxxx
2) AKxxx, AK, KQJx, KQ opposite Qx, Qxx, xx, AJxxx

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. As I understand it, you believe that with the hand that opener held at the table, if he thought that spades were solid he would have passed 6♠, and he bid 6NT because he thought he had a spade loser.

If so, you should be able to provide examples of responding hands, consistent with responder's bidding so far, where:

(1) With AK9xx AJ AKxx KQ opposite ♠QJ, it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and
(2) With AK9xx AJ AKxx KQ opposite ♠Qx where it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

Can you?

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

Josh,

Back to my point.  Without a "tight" understanding, how does responder know that opener holds AKxxx and not AKJxx?

He doesn't. He shows his hand and let's opener decide what his own hand contains.

Quote

If opener had 6241 shape, would he bid 2S followed by 3D?  If so, wouldn't he want partner to offer support with xx?  If such is the case, then 3S cannot show more than xx, no?

All correct. But you seem to be ignorring the 5!!!!!♠ bid. That shows better than xx!

Quote

What was the agreement?

What agreement? Everything you just said is evident.

Quote

With the above question in mind, does 3N show AKxxx or simply a hand that does not want to play 4S opposite xx (which would include AKJxx, I would think.)?

The second one, and hearts stopped of course. Does that really need to be said? How can 3NT mean anything but "I prefer this contract to alternatives opposite the hand you have thus far shown."?

Quote

All I am saying is that most of us play 2C without much formal structure to it. (In the hand given all I said was I sense that this was the case here - meaning that my sense could also be wrong.)

Why is that so controversial?

Your entire point seems to be "lot's of people don't have a good idea what they are doing on these auctions, therefore I sense these people didn't have a good idea what they were doing in this case, even though their bids turned out to be very accurate as to the hands they actually held." It's like you don't believe that anyone could have an auction like this and know what they are doing.

[Winstonm]

gnasher, on Feb 9 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

Quote

Can you provide examples of:
(1) A responding hand containing ♠QJ where it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and
(2) A responding hand containing ♠Qx where' it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

I think so.
1) AK10xx, KJ, AKxx, KQ opposite QJ, xxx, Qxx, Axxxx
2) AKxxx, AK, KQJx, KQ opposite Qx, Qxx, xx, AJxxx

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. As I understand it, you believe that with the hand that opener held at the table, if he thought that spades were solid he would have passed 6♠, and he bid 6NT because he thought he had a spade loser.

If so, you should be able to provide examples of responding hands, consistent with responder's bidding so far, where:

(1) With AK9xx AJ AKxx KQ opposite ♠QJ, it's right for opener to pass 6♠, and
(2) With AK9xx AJ AKxx KQ opposite ♠Qx where it's right for opener to bid 6NT.

Can you?

I don't know - probably not - if you don't think it possible it probably isnt' and I really don't care. That was never my point or intention so I say why bother.

Quote

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. As I understand it, you believe that with the hand that opener held at the table, if he thought that spades were solid he would have passed 6♠, and he bid 6NT because he thought he had a spade loser.

Did I or did I not say "I sensed" that from the 3S bid on the auction was not precisely defined (or words close to that)? I did not say "I believe" or "I know". I did say that the strongest clue to me was the 6N bid. All of these statements are open to repudiation and I made no claim that they were anything other than my impression of the auction.

My point is the same now as then: Standard 2C structures are imprecise and very few players have taken the time and trouble to increase the definitions of bids or the structure. Now, if anyone wants to argue that standard methods are as accurate as relay methods he is either a fool or simply looking for a fight.

I am quite certain you are a fine bridge player - you must be to have been selected to represent your country.

Your skill actually bears out my contention. It is your skill - and not the system - that allowed you and your partner to use a non-accurate method to reach a superior contract.

Well done. That doesn't change the fact that standard 2C bidding still has a somewhat loose structure that appears to have room to be improved.

[Winstonm]

Quote

All correct. But you seem to be ignorring the 5!!!!!♠ bid. That shows better than xx!

I am not ignoring the 5S bid - I am saying the 5S bid is dependent upon the understanding of what spades could be held for the 3N bid - that the 5S bid is about agreements - and that reaching the conclusion that 5S shows QJ without an agreement is about bridge judgement and not system.

If - as you agree - the 3S bid could be made on xx, then why can't the 5S bid be made on Qx or Kx? Could a case not also be made for bidding 5 spades over 3N if holding Qx, Qxxx, xx, AJxxx? Opposite AKJ10x, AJ, AKJx, Kx the diamond ruff is trick 12 without finesee.

Quote

Your entire point seems to be "lot's of people don't have a good idea what they are doing on these auctions, therefore I sense these people didn't have a good idea what they were doing in this case, even though their bids turned out to be very accurate as to the hands they actually held."

You are close, actually. My entire point is that No One can have a precise 2C auction unless strong agreements are in place - the more frequently the better contract is reached using unadjusted methods shows superior bidding judgement but does not alter the fact that the system is imprecise.