[gnasher]

phil_20686, on Oct 26 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

With a hand that is 5422 15-17 which is heavy in teh short suits, most people will open 1N.

Do they? How horrible.

[fred]

phil_20686, on Oct 26 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

I'm interested in what type of system you would play here fred, surely differentiating hands is at least as important as showing immeadeate support in this situation? Do you play 2d as 5+ and commonly raise on 3, such that the 4th diamond itself constitutes an extra worth showing?

I can't see what the gain is in bidding 3d immeadeately, when i could bid 2s-2n-3d to show the same hand with better limits on strength. I assume there is some hidden gain here that I am missing?

For me 2D would almost always be a 5-card suit (because I would bid 1S-2NT with a balanced game force and I could actually see making that call with the hand for responder that was the subject of this thread).

I would occasionally raise 2D to 3D with 3-card support in a hand that "looked good for diamonds" and for which I could foresee later problems by not raising immediately, but I would guess that 3D would deliver 4-card support at least 80% of the time.

For me 1S-2D-2S doesn't really mean that much in terms of either spade length or overall strength. 2S basically means "I don't want to bid anything else". Resolving this ambiguity is already hard enough - that is one of the reasons I would not want to further overload this bid by including bad hands with 4-card support. Another reason is that one of the few popular bridge maxims I believe in is "support with support"

A final reason is that, for me, 1S-2D-2S-2NT and subsequent auctions are used for resolving important and frequent issues like:

- finding out if we have a 6-2 spade fit
- finding out the extent of our fit (or lack thereof) in diamonds in the context of opener basically having denied 4-card support
- choice of games decisions (4S with 6-2, 6-1, or 5-2 fit vs. 3NT with any of these possible spade fits vs. 5D on occasion)

So I could imagine bidding 3D in this auction with something like:

AQJxxx
?x
KQ
xxx

Regardless of whether the ? of hearts is the Ace or the deuce.

And, if bidding 3D with a doubleton is a possibility almost regardless of the strength of opener's hand, I can't see making the same bid with 4-card support and a minimum hand and expecting partner to *know* that is what I have. If that is what the delayed 3D means for you then you will usually be better off than me if opener has 4-card diamond support, but I will be better off than you in several other scenarios. If you could also bid 3D on a lot of different types of hands then I don't see what you are gaining since you will often never be able to get the "4-card support" message across anyways. I would rather just get it over with and raise right away.

In general I don't worry too much about limiting either hand early in the bidding. I prefer to adopt a heavy "games before slams" approach (another of those rare maxims that rings true for me). For sure some hands slip through the cracks, but like I said in my previous post: all systems will get you to the wrong spot some of the time.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

Very interesting thread. As a nonexpert I found it brought up several thoughtful ideas. Thanks.

For me in the OP I play 2/1 promises alot so I start with 1nt, not a game forcing bid.


xx....Qxx....AKxxx...Axx would fall in that gray borderline area. I guess I would call this a dead minimum 2/1 for me. So:


1s=2d(?)
3d=(4c?) (3nt?)
4h(kickback) ( as a nonexpert I tend to overuse rkc)
--------


I also noted this conversation:


"Question #2 is always a problem. We try to make the most logical, information-exchanging rebid. If 3D is that bid, then so be it.



The problem comes when you have 4-card support and no shortness. There should be something different between 1S----2D-----3D when one can be AKxxx,xx,Kxx,xxx and another can be Axxxx,Kx,AQxx,xx. Tough to differentiate, especially when opener doesn’t know if responder was looking for 3N,4M, or something else. Also, with shortness, a club splinter would take you past 3NT. So, Axxxx,KQx,Qxxx,x should splinter IN THEORY, but 3D might be best…..then fully cooperate if partner starts cue-bidding. With AKxxx,Axx,Qxxx.x, I think a splinter is in order."

[dake50]

Do any bids in this auction promise 'good'/'bad' controls for previous?
Rant back to G.Rozenkrants(sp) c1975: big bids promise good controls. When neither partner is constrained to have good controls isn't overheating guaranteed often?

[aguahombre]

mike777, on Oct 26 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

for me in the OP I play 2/1 promises alot so I start with 1nt, not a game forcing  bid.

I guess only us non experts believe that to be right.

[Codo]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

Seriously bridge is a game of percentages. Nobody is claiming if they take an action it will work out whenever partner has any hand in his possible set of hands. So refuting someones bid based on one cherry picked hand is pretty silly.

The silliest thing in this thread is by far dbrn saying that you KNOW one common system is inferior to another common system. The second silliest thing is dburn going off on hanp for giving his input in a thread where dburn asked for advice.

But the joke is on all of us for thinking dburn actually cares what anyone has to say, he knows it all and would like to make not-so-clever jokes and not-so-clever references to obscure things to show us how smart he is.

Oh and did I mention he likes to troll Americans?

Justin,

I love the way you think about Bridge and your insightful threads about this.

But can you please stop to insult people just because they have a different style to write and think?

[jdonn]

Codo, on Oct 27 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

Justin,

I love the way you think about Bridge and your insightful threads about this.

But can you please stop to insult people just because they have a different style to write and think?

Write... think.... insult.... belittle.... demean.... whatever.

[gordontd]

phil_20686, on Oct 26 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF

While 2S might be non-forcing in some versions of Std Am, it is forcing in sayc because a 2/1 promises a rebid.

[mich-b]

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

mich-b, on Oct 26 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

4♦ was reasonable , though minimum for bypassing 3NT. (4♣ might be a better bid, using the space to show control "on the way").
5♣ was ok. I agree with showing 1st round controls below game, especially by an already limited hand. (limited by bidding 3NT).
6♦ was way too much. 4♦ was already a move towards slam, and the West hand surely does not hold additional values.

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx.

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

If opener would have bid 4♣ (and not 4♦) they would be able to sort out both posession of controls in all suits , and having (or not) enough extras , until they reached 5♦.

After opener bid 4♦, the auction effectively turned to kind of quantitative one
(Opener's 4♦ meaning - I have extras, let's not worry about ♣/♥ controls, do you generally like your hand ?) , so with your hand (♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx) responder should bid slam because his hand is good, control rich, and has a 5th ♦.
You ask what about the ♥ control ? When the auction got quantitative, rather than control seeking, responder should IMHO ignore control issues , trusting opener to have a ♥ control for his forward going 4♦.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on Oct 26 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 26 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

for me in the OP I play 2/1 promises alot so I start with 1nt, not a game forcing  bid.

I guess only us non experts believe that to be right.

Perhaps. But from my observations, those experts have a greater tendency to open very light. In which case, should the expert's partner really force to game with an average 12-count (good spots, but scattered honors)?

Maybe those experts routinely make their 23 point games, even when they have forced to them without knowledge of any fit. I wonder.

[cherdanno]

Codo, on Oct 27 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

Justin,

I love the way you think about Bridge and your insightful threads about this.

But can you please stop to insult people just because they have a different style to write and think?

Codo, in this thread it wasn't Justin who started the insults.

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Oct 27 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

Codo, in this thread it wasn't Justin who started the insults.

That depends on whether "LOL" is an insult.

[Fluffy]

cherdanno, on Oct 27 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

Codo, on Oct 27 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

Justin,

I love the way you think about Bridge and your insightful threads about this.

But can you please stop to insult people just because they have a different style to write and think?

Codo, in this thread it wasn't Justin who started the insults.

He ain't talking only about this post sadly. But I feel that things are improving on this matter anyway.

[helene_t]

phil_20686, on Oct 26 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

2/1 is not like sayc, it requires a totally different frame of mind. If you have a 2/1 structure you just bid 2s on this hand, then partner can bid 2n (some kind of relay/enquiry) and then you can show a minimum hand with 5-4.

Making any bid past 2s in a 2/1 auction should show extras, including raising partners suit, otherwise you would have the aforementioned problem. Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF and you might just want to play in your best partscore 3d.

If by "SAYC" you mean the style of most players who put "SAYC" on their profile, then OK.

But as SAYC is described on a.o. the ACBL site,
1♠-2♦
2♠
and
1♠-2♦
3♦
are both forcing.

[JLOL]

Codo, on Oct 27 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 27 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

Seriously bridge is a game of percentages. Nobody is claiming if they take an action it will work out whenever partner has any hand in his possible set of hands. So refuting someones bid based on one cherry picked hand is pretty silly.

The silliest thing in this thread is by far dbrn saying that you KNOW one common system is inferior to another common system. The second silliest thing is dburn going off on hanp for giving his input in a thread where dburn asked for advice.

But the joke is on all of us for thinking dburn actually cares what anyone has to say, he knows it all and would like to make not-so-clever jokes and not-so-clever references to obscure things to show us how smart he is.

Oh and did I mention he likes to troll Americans?

Justin,

I love the way you think about Bridge and your insightful threads about this.

But can you please stop to insult people just because they have a different style to write and think?

LOL

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Oct 27 2009, 08:06 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 27 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

Codo, in this thread it wasn't Justin who started the insults.

That depends on whether "LOL" is an insult.

Give me a break. Dburn makes a post asking several questions. All hanp does is answer them.

For this hanp deserves these 2 comments:

dburn said:

(Memo to self: asking hanp a question is a mistake. I knew this, but I had forgotten.)

dburn said:

then I would rather - well, I would almost rather play an entire session with hanp than play these cards in 3NT and not 5♦.

???

We also get some obligatory snotty remarks about "American bidding."

Naturally I'm the jerk in this thread because I said LOL when dburn said he "knew" that playing 2/1 was wrong. Ok. The world we live in is very funny.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Give me a break. Dburn makes a post asking several questions. All hanp does is answer them.

For this hanp deserves these 2 comments:

...

Are you saying that your "LOL" was justified because you knew that Burn was gong to insult Han four hours later?

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Oct 27 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 27 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Give me a break. Dburn makes a post asking several questions. All hanp does is answer them.

For this hanp deserves these 2 comments:

...

Are you saying that your "LOL" was justified because you knew that Burn was gong to insult Han four hours later?

Come on, if I wrote s.th. like "well but we already knew Brits can't bid", then I wouldn't mind getting a sarcastic reply, or a "LOL", or whatever. In fact, any comment just ridiculing my statement, rather than ridiculing me or Americans or Germans or Dutch would seem rather mild in reply to me.

[gnasher]

Do you mean that "to play [2/1 game-forcing] is a mistake" was an insult? Or are you saying that it wasn't an insult per se, but it merited one by way of a reply?

Edit: I'm rather regretting getting involved in this. As far as I'm concerned, Justin and David can throw around all of the insults they want to, as long as neither of them, nor Han, is thereby discouraged from sharing their views about bridge.

[aguahombre]

interesting title for this thread.