[skjaeran]

1♠ for me, keeping it simple. Can't see how this can be nasty, after all I've got support for hearts... Even playing SJSs (I don't), I'd not do it here. Never with a second suit which could be our best trump.

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Jul 30 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

1♠ for me, keeping it simple. Can't see how this can be nasty, after all I've got support for hearts... Even playing SJSs (I don't), I'd not do it here. Never with a second suit which could be our best trump.

Here's how it gets nasty:

1♥-P-1♠-P-
2♣-P-2♦(GF -- note that diamonhds not shown)
3♣-P-3♥-P-
4♥-P-???

Is 5♣ here Exsclusion?

Or,

1♥-P-1♠-P-
2♣-P-2♦-P-
3NT-P-???

In other words, focusing hearts later may be complicated, and focusing hearts while enabling Exclusion might be radically difficult.

Compare this with an auction where spade re-focus is possible:

1♥-P-2♦-P-
2♠-P-3♠

Amazingly easy.

I hate to say this for fear of wild laughter, but easy sometimes is better.

[Echognome]

Not that you might not run into trouble later, but it seems exceedingly simple to play:

1♥ - 1♠;
2♣ - 3♦ = 5-5 GF

Of course it's going to be difficult to show your entire hand, but it's not to say that it cannot be done.

You might also argue that some people play 3♦ as INV. So be it. But every system you design is going to have some difficult hands to bid.

Obviously if you give me an uncontested auction every time, put me down for relay.

[pooltuna]

zheddh, on Jul 30 2009, 02:12 AM, said:

(p) - 1♥ - (p) - ?

Do you prefer a 1S now or a 2D? Please give your reasons and subsequent plan.

Scoring: MP

---

TIA

2♦ is absurd, anti system, and anti partnership

[Lobowolf]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 31 2009, 03:19 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Jul 30 2009, 08:36 AM, said:

2♠ a SJS, let partner in on the secret early

Agree with this. Playing with the GIBs has re-introduced me to the joys of SJS.

I get to follow-up with 3 or 4♣ to show spades, heart support and club shortness and I like this approach.

Why would any of these auctions

1♥ 2♠
2NT 3♣

or

1♥ 2♠
3any 4♣

show shortage?

Playing Soloway jump-shifts (reasonably common in N.A. among pairs that plays strong jump-shifts), the jump-shift shows one of three hands: A balanced monster, a one-suiter, and a two-suiter than includes support for partner. Most glaringly missing - no independent two-suiters. Since responder can't have a two-suiter comprised of spades & clubs, the rebid, by agreement, instead shows shortness (and by implication shows the two-suiter than includes support).

[helene_t]

1♠ wtp. 2♠ might work but we might belong in diamonds.

[ONEferBRID]

Lobowolf, on Jul 30 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 30 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 31 2009, 03:19 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Jul 30 2009, 08:36 AM, said:

2♠ a SJS, let partner in on the secret early

Agree with this. Playing with the GIBs has re-introduced me to the joys of SJS.

I get to follow-up with 3 or 4♣ to show spades, heart support and club shortness and I like this approach.

Why would any of these auctions

1♥ 2♠
2NT 3♣

or

1♥ 2♠
3any 4♣

show shortage?

Playing Soloway jump-shifts (reasonably common in N.A. among pairs that plays strong jump-shifts), the jump-shift shows one of three hands: A balanced monster, a one-suiter, and a two-suiter than includes support for partner. Most glaringly missing - no independent two-suiters. Since responder can't have a two-suiter comprised of spades & clubs, the rebid, by agreement, instead shows shortness (and by implication shows the two-suiter than includes support).

Soloway Type 3 ( where Responder has support for Opener's suit and possible shortage in another ) also requires FOUR card support for Opener's suit.
This hand has only 3 card support .
[ And I agree with the Lobowolf who said holding a strong TWO-suiter, neither of which is support for partner automatically disqualifies this as Soloway ] .

[ONEferBRID]

kenrexford, on Jul 30 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 30 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

1♠ for me, keeping it simple. Can't see how this can be nasty, after all I've got support for hearts... Even playing SJSs (I don't), I'd not do it here. Never with a second suit which could be our best trump.

Here's how it gets nasty:

1♥-P-1♠-P-
2♣-P-2♦(GF -- note that diamonhds not shown)
3♣-P-3♥-P-
4♥-P-???

Is 5♣ here Exsclusion?

Or,

1♥-P-1♠-P-
2♣-P-2♦-P-
3NT-P-???

In other words, focusing hearts later may be complicated, and focusing hearts while enabling Exclusion might be radically difficult.

Compare this with an auction where spade re-focus is possible:

1♥-P-2♦-P-
2♠-P-3♠

Amazingly easy.

I hate to say this for fear of wild laughter, but easy sometimes is better.

Ken:

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges with your examples showing a Sp rebid ( by Opener ) in the latter but Cl rebids in the former.

What is wrong with the following re-focus :
1H - 1S
2S - 4C! splinter for Sp re-focus

Of course you could have splintered in your 2D! GF! auction as well:
1H - 2D!
2S - 4C! = splinter for Sp

[andy_h]

Don't have any experience in 2♦(or 2♣ for that matter) that can have 5♠'s but only with 4, though it does look semi-attractive...
So I guess it's 1♠ for me.

[kenrexford]

Echognome, on Jul 30 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

Not that you might not run into trouble later, but it seems exceedingly simple to play:

1♥ - 1♠;
2♣ - 3♦ = 5-5 GF

Of course it's going to be difficult to show your entire hand, but it's not to say that it cannot be done.

You might also argue that some people play 3♦ as INV. So be it. But every system you design is going to have some difficult hands to bid.

Obviously if you give me an uncontested auction every time, put me down for relay.

I left that out, even though I play 3♦ as 55GF, because I though that was rare. But, the problem still exists. How can you then focus hearts and keep the auction alive? You are actually already dead here.

[aguahombre]

Ken, and the others who choose 2D to start, must use that approach if they also play a second round jump in diamonds as 5-5GF, because --as Ken says, the jump kills it. But if (after 1S)rebidding diamonds cheaply and then bidding them again is game forcing, it seems that the problem goes away, and responder can still show heart support later--after bidding around the club void.
This would be the case in any auction except for A 1NT rebid by opener. Then, Responder can just take over with "Any Minor Force", find out the strain (if shape responses and follow-ups are used), and later use exclusion if appropriate.

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on Jul 31 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

Ken, and the others who choose 2D to start, must use that approach if they also play a second round jump in diamonds as 5-5GF, because --as Ken says, the jump kills it. But if (after 1S)rebidding diamonds cheaply and then bidding them again is game forcing, it seems that the problem goes away, and responder can still show heart support later--after bidding around the club void.
This would be the case in any auction except for A 1NT rebid by opener. Then, Responder can just take over with "Any Minor Force", find out the strain (if shape responses and follow-ups are used), and later use exclusion if appropriate.

The problem is still that you are too strong for that.

1♥-P-1♠-P-
2♣-P-2♦(GF)-P-
3♣(no spade support)-P-3♦(55)-P-
3NT-P-???

If Responder just bids 4♥, that seems to be a reasonable call with a much lesser hand, IMO.

AQxxx-Kxx-KQxxx-void
KQxxx-Kxx-KQxxx-void
AKQxx-xxx-KQxxx-void
AKQxx-Kxx-Qxxxx-void

Stuff like that.

Granted, you could simply bid 2♦ GF and then 3♥ after clubs is rebid by Opener, but that sounds like possibly 2-card without diamond control.

[ONEferBRID]

Ken.... you have done it again ( "apples vs oranges" )

Your preferred auction:
1H - 2D! ( GF )
3C - 3H

has no advantage over:
1H - 1S
2C - 2D! ( 4SGF )
3C - 3H ( Responder would NOT rebid 3D here )

"Level-wise" -- showing 3 card Ht support is the same (3H ).

If anything, I would think it more advantageous to have
shown that fine Sp suit ( and keep the Diam suit a "secret"
for the moment ).
The 4SGF action implies the Sp are 5 cards.

Your auction shows that "fair" Diam 5 card suit and keeps the
Sp suit a "secret" for the moment.
In either case, you will never be able to show that the "secret" suit
is also 5 cards-- not that it matters -----
EXCEPT if Opener had THREE card Sp support, you would ONLY find that in the 1H - 1S auction going thru 4SGF:
1H - 1S
2C - 2D!
2S - etc

Whereas, your auction ONLY allows the Spade suit "re-focus" when Opener has FOUR cards Spades:
1H - 2D!
2S - 3S etc.

[barryallen]

ONEferBRID, on Jul 31 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

Ken.... you have done it again ( "apples vs oranges" )

Your preferred auction:
1H - 2D! ( GF )
3C - 3H

has no advantage over:
1H - 1S
2C - 2D! ( 4SGF )
3C - 3H ( Responder would NOT rebid 3D here )

"Level-wise" -- showing 3 card Ht support is the same (3H ).

If anything, I would think it more advantageous to have
shown that fine Sp suit ( and keep the Diam suit a "secret"
for the moment ).
The 4SGF action implies the Sp are 5 cards.

Your auction shows that "fair" Diam 5 card suit and keeps the
Sp suit a "secret" for the moment.
In either case, you will never be able to show that the "secret" suit
is also 5 cards-- not that it matters -----
EXCEPT if Opener had THREE card Sp support, you would ONLY find that in the 1H - 1S auction going thru 4SGF:
1H - 1S
2C - 2D!
2S - etc

Whereas, your auction ONLY allows the Spade suit "re-focus" when Opener has FOUR cards Spades:
1H - 2D!
2S - 3S etc.

Your auction shows that "fair" Diam 5 card suit and keeps the
Sp suit a "secret" for the moment.

Is this a case of giving or receiving information?

[ONEferBRID]

zheddh.... May we see Opener's hand now ?

barryallen .... I don't understand your question .

[zheddh]

ONEferBRID, on Jul 31 2009, 08:26 PM, said:

zheddh.... May we see Opener's hand now ?

Well, opener's hand here isn't a problem hand. Both 1♠ and 2♦ would work perfectly well.

He had a easy heart rebid with xx AQT98xxx x AQ and reaching 6♥ is easy.

I played a similar hand a couple of weeks back which is more interesting.

Scoring: IMP

Surprisingly, no one introduced clubs

---

On both the auctions, i bid 2♦ because it looked easy to GF and support hearts later, but i think 1♠ is better now.

[mike777]

ONEferBRID, on Jul 31 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

Ken.... you have done it again ( "apples vs oranges" )

Your preferred auction:
1H  -  2D! ( GF )
3C -   3H 

has no advantage over:
1H  - 1S
2C  - 2D! ( 4SGF )
3C  - 3H ( Responder would NOT rebid 3D here )

"Level-wise" -- showing 3 card Ht support is the same (3H ).

If anything, I would think it more advantageous to have
shown that fine Sp suit ( and keep the Diam suit a "secret"
for the moment ).
The 4SGF action implies the Sp are 5 cards.

Your auction shows that "fair" Diam 5 card suit and keeps the
Sp suit a "secret" for the moment.
In either case, you will never be able to show that the "secret" suit
is also 5 cards-- not that it matters -----
EXCEPT if Opener had THREE card Sp support, you would ONLY find that in  the 1H - 1S auction going thru 4SGF:
1H - 1S
2C - 2D!
2S - etc

Whereas, your auction ONLY allows the Spade suit "re-focus" when Opener has FOUR cards Spades:
1H - 2D!
2S - 3S etc.

ok.....I can agree 1s is fine but given I picked 2d to make things easier:


1h=2d
over 3d(not extra) or 3c(not extra) or 2nt(not extra) or 2h(6) I bid 3h slam try in h, easy
over 2s(not extra) I rebid 3s slam try, easy


your post not only seems tough but is tough.....not wrong just tough.....

AGain 1s is fine....

[mike777]

edit

[mike777]

zheddh, on Jul 31 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

ONEferBRID, on Jul 31 2009, 08:26 PM, said:

zheddh....  May we see Opener's hand now ?

Well, opener's hand here isn't a problem hand. Both 1♠ and 2♦ would work perfectly well.

He had a easy heart rebid with xx AQT98xxx x AQ and reaching 6♥ is easy.

I played a similar hand a couple of weeks back which is more interesting.

Scoring: IMP

Surprisingly, no one introduced clubs

---

On both the auctions, i bid 2♦ because it looked easy to GF and support hearts later, but i think 1♠ is better now.

I think this is a very different hand.

[peachy]

With gameforcing values, it is counterproductive to distort the shape of the responding hand. 1S, completely clear.