[Jlall]

gwnn, on Aug 12 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 12 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If playing natural, should 3♣ show 4 or 5? Also how about opener's splinters?

4 and 4. If partner has 2 clubs he will always have 3 card support for your major, if partner has 4 clubs he will always have 3 card support unless he is 2443 in which case he can usually just bid 3N or 4N next.

[kenrexford]

Deafult 2♣.

However, 2♦ if there is a tactical advantage (rare).

For example, with Qxx-AKxx-AQJ10-Jx, there is something to be said for 2♦ for me because my next call will be a fairly accurate fit bid showing two of the top three hearts, three of the top four diamonds, and no black controls. With a big HCP hand like this, it seems fairly reasonable to approach the hand this way. More appealing if actually 2542.

I could imagine other layouts where 2♦ might seem more tactically advantageous.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

[jillybean]

fromageGB, on Aug 12 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 12 2009, 02:16 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 partner opens 1M , with a gf xx42 hand do you start with 2♣ or 2♦?

I bid 2♥ if my partner's major was spades, as I must have at least 5 hearts if my shape is xx42. (We have other gf bids with 3 card trump support.)
Similarly if partner's major is hearts, I bid 1NT (5+ spades, unlimited, or you would bid 1♠ unlimited if not playing Kaplan inversion).

This means that 1M 2m is a 5 card suit. Much simpler.

What do you bid after partner opens 1♠ and you hold gf 2443, unsuitable for 3nt?

[awm]

Although a lot of the best and/or most frequent posters on BBF seem to favor 2♣ on these hands, it may be worth mentioning that my informal poll of local experts came out pretty strongly in favor of 2♦. Obviously there are merits to both approaches and this may be somewhat impacted by where I live, but responding 2♣ on 2443 hands is not nearly so mainstream as it may appear from posts in this forum.

[Cascade]

jillybean, on Aug 13 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

fromageGB, on Aug 12 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 12 2009, 02:16 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 partner opens 1M , with a gf xx42 hand do you start with 2♣ or 2♦?

I bid 2♥ if my partner's major was spades, as I must have at least 5 hearts if my shape is xx42. (We have other gf bids with 3 card trump support.)
Similarly if partner's major is hearts, I bid 1NT (5+ spades, unlimited, or you would bid 1♠ unlimited if not playing Kaplan inversion).

This means that 1M 2m is a 5 card suit. Much simpler.

What do you bid after partner opens 1♠ and you hold gf 2443, unsuitable for 3nt?

Guess.

Not that there is anything wrong with guessing. It happens in any system.

You might choose to play the 5=2 major fit.

[fromageGB]

jillybean, on Aug 13 2009, 02:58 AM, said:

fromageGB, on Aug 12 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 12 2009, 02:16 AM, said:

Playing 2/1 partner opens 1M , with a gf xx42 hand do you start with 2♣ or 2♦?

I bid 2♥ if my partner's major was spades, as I must have at least 5 hearts if my shape is xx42. (We have other gf bids with 3 card trump support.)
Similarly if partner's major is hearts, I bid 1NT (5+ spades, unlimited, or you would bid 1♠ unlimited if not playing Kaplan inversion).

This means that 1M 2m is a 5 card suit. Much simpler.

What do you bid after partner opens 1♠ and you hold gf 2443, unsuitable for 3nt?

In the methods my partner and I play, we have a bid of 2M+2 (eg 1♥ 2NT, or 1♠ 3♣) that is defined as typically 13-15 and 3 card support, no sensible 5 card suit.

If opener rebids 3M, this is a command to cue bid.
If opener rebids 3NT it shows a hand that is happy to play there.
If opener rebids the other major it shows a natural 4+ card suit in case it fits better.

We can make this 2M+2 bid, because it is otherwise free, with 2M+1 being the 4 card support shortage inquiry, and both 2M+3 and 2M+4 being Bergen raises. It was an otherwise unused bid for us.

If we are that sort of shape but stronger, we actually start off with a forcing next step but show it on the next round.

I think there are advantages in having a 2♣/♦ immediate response as showing a decent 5 card suit.

[Fluffy]

I would normally bid 2♦ over 1♠ with 2443 but honnor allocation might make me switch to 2♣.

[fromageGB]

Sorry, I misread the hand quoted.
With only 2 cards in partner's major we would normally bid just a simple 3NT with 13-15. Yes, I agree that there could be a side suit wide open, but that is never guaranteed. However, with this particular hand only, I may bid 2♦, which allows partner to show hearts if he has them, and if he supports diamonds I have a chance at escaping in 3NT. If he insists, then 5♦ may not be disastrous.

We would only do this with 4 hearts, and then we may bid a 4 card minor.

[Jlall]

Cascade, on Aug 12 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 12 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

Are you really this much of an idiot?

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

Hi Justin:



I suspect that he is making a rather oblique reference to the BSC overcall debate that cropped up a while ago. This discussion hinged on the definition of a 1♣; specifically whether a 1♣ opening that showed 2+ Clubs was natural or artificial.

This 2♣ response feels quite similar

[gnasher]

If you respond 2♣ to 1M on all balanced hands, shouldn't you also open 1♣ with all balanced hands, so as to make 1♦ show 5+? It seems to me that the arguments for the former are almost equally applicable to the latter.

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Aug 13 2009, 06:36 AM, said:

If you respond 2♣ to 1M on all balanced hands, shouldn't you also open 1♣ with all balanced hands, so as to make 1♦ show 5+? It seems to me that the arguments for the former are almost equally applicable to the latter.

The debate about what to open with 4432 should be mostly about competitive bidding. After 1M-2m, competition is rather unlikely.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Aug 13 2009, 06:36 AM, said:

If you respond 2♣ to 1M on all balanced hands, shouldn't you also open 1♣ with all balanced hands, so as to make 1♦ show 5+? It seems to me that the arguments for the former are almost equally applicable to the latter.

Funny you should ask...

Actually, I only open, in preferred agreements, 1♦ when I have a stiff or void in the hand. 3rd/4th seat might be different. Can make exceptions when 7222 or maybe 6322 is insist. But, pretty much guarantees unbalanced. Hence, 1♣ could easily be opened with 3352 shape, or worse.

I have been doing this for 20+ years. Seems like a lot of people have been doing this recently.

[Free]

I think standard 1M-2♦ is 4+♦.
I think 5+♦ is becoming more and more standard.
I prefer (5)6+♦ (5 only with fit) and 1M-2♣ as a relay holding many hand types.

[skjaeran]

I'd prefer to bid 2♣ over 1♠ with 3442, exception for a very good diamond suit. Never had this agreement in a regular partnership though.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 12 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

Are you really this much of an idiot?

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

Why would it occur to anyone that your "natural" only referred to responses to some artificial bid? Why can't responses to a relay be "natural"?

It certainly appeared to me that you were suggesting that a 2♣ response on a doubleton suit was part of a "natural" structure. It plainly is not. I believe any ambiguity or inaccuracy was in your post not in my interpretation of it. There has been some history where I believe North Americans have treated bids in short suits as "natural" when plainly they are not. Those arguments have been used to gain unfair advantages for players playing certain methods. The argument is fallicious. I reserve my right to point out that bidding a doubleton as your first entry into an auction is not "natural".

Personally I think the forums would be much better without personal attacks which I doubt very much are within the terms of use of these forums.

[awm]

It seems safe to say that:

(1) There are many advantages to a style where, by agreement, balanced GF hands bid 2♣.
(2) Such agreement makes the 2♣ response both artificial and alertable.
(3) There are merits to responding 2♣ with 4♦ and 2-3♣ without special agreements.
(4) However, responding this way w/o agreement is riskier since partner may misevaluate.
(5) Responding 2♣ on such hands is not "just bridge" nor is it the universal expert choice.

It may also be worth mentioning that some very good regular posters to these fora feel very strongly that it is best practice to respond 2♣ on such hands, even in the absence of special agreement. However, these individuals are part of a single close-knit "clique" of expert players (i.e. those who post on BBF) and it's not clear that their views reflect the views of the expert community at large.

[cherdanno]

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 12 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

Are you really this much of an idiot?

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

Why would it occur to anyone that your "natural" only referred to responses to some artificial bid? Why can't responses to a relay be "natural"?

It certainly appeared to me that you were suggesting that a 2♣ response on a doubleton suit was part of a "natural" structure. It plainly is not. I believe any ambiguity or inaccuracy was in your post not in my interpretation of it. There has been some history where I believe North Americans have treated bids in short suits as "natural" when plainly they are not. Those arguments have been used to gain unfair advantages for players playing certain methods. The argument is fallicious. I reserve my right to point out that bidding a doubleton as your first entry into an auction is not "natural".

Personally I think the forums would be much better without personal attacks which I doubt very much are within the terms of use of these forums.

Well, maybe you are a little too obsessed with the North Americans gaining unfair advantages if
- you misunderstand Justin's post in this way,
- you feel the need to drive home your point about those unfair advantages in a completely unrelated post,
- even after Justin clarified that he didn't intend to say that 2♣ bal or natural is a natural call, you still have to repeat and justify your opinion that 2♣ bal or natural is a natural call.

Given all that (and more), it is hardly surprising that some people here find you annoying. Personally, I think the forum would be a better place if you didn't take 1000s posts to convince everyone else of your pet peeves even in completely unrelated threads and even when you have already said everything that can be said in favor of your pet peeve, and regardless whether everyone else already disagrees or agrees with you.

[Cascade]

cherdanno, on Aug 14 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 12 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

Agree that relays is better but even if just bidding natural I find 2C with bal or clubs to be fine/good/much better than bidding 2D on bal hands with 4.

If you bid 2♣ with Balanced or clubs then you are not playing "natural".

Do you really have to have everything so clearly spelled out for you in literal terms that you cannot tell that "I agree playing relay [RESPONSES to 2C] is better but even if playing natural [RESPONSES to 2C]..." is what was meant here?

Why would it occur to anyone that your "natural" only referred to responses to some artificial bid? Why can't responses to a relay be "natural"?

It certainly appeared to me that you were suggesting that a 2♣ response on a doubleton suit was part of a "natural" structure. It plainly is not. I believe any ambiguity or inaccuracy was in your post not in my interpretation of it. There has been some history where I believe North Americans have treated bids in short suits as "natural" when plainly they are not. Those arguments have been used to gain unfair advantages for players playing certain methods. The argument is fallicious. I reserve my right to point out that bidding a doubleton as your first entry into an auction is not "natural".

Personally I think the forums would be much better without personal attacks which I doubt very much are within the terms of use of these forums.

Well, maybe you are a little too obsessed with the North Americans gaining unfair advantages if
- you misunderstand Justin's post in this way,
- you feel the need to drive home your point about those unfair advantages in a completely unrelated post,
- even after Justin clarified that he didn't intend to say that 2♣ bal or natural is a natural call, you still have to repeat and justify your opinion that 2♣ bal or natural is a natural call.

Given all that (and more), it is hardly surprising that some people here find you annoying. Personally, I think the forum would be a better place if you didn't take 1000s posts to convince everyone else of your pet peeves even in completely unrelated threads and even when you have already said everything that can be said in favor of your pet peeve, and regardless whether everyone else already disagrees or agrees with you.

I didn't misunderstand anything.

Justin said "just bidding natural " and then "2C with bal or clubs".

These statements are plainly contradictory. It is not "just" "natural" if your 2♣ bid does not show clubs.

Maybe Justin didn't mean this by there is no way of telling this from his post. It certainly reads like he thinks that 2♣ that can be short is a subset of "natural".

I made a simple factual statement about the inaccuracy in Justin's post. Then first Justin insults me and now you respond with emotive terms like "pet peeve" and gross exaggerations about my posting habits. I doubt that you would be able to come close to substantiating that I have made anything like 1000s of posts supporting any "pet peeves". My posts are intended to be constructive based on bridge arguments or to rebutt specific views that I do not believe are correct or accurate. In my view that approach is far more reasonable than what you seem to be advocating where personal attacks and the like are accepted.