[inquiry]

In the other thread, I showed how the use of 2C opener followed by 2NT to show a three suiter was a very effective biding method. To do that, I used bridgebrowser by stephen pickett and hands actually played in the BBO. I posted 30 such hands (20 4441 and 10 4450 hands), and these where the first 20 and first 10 hands returned by the browser that meet the criteria for the 2C opening bid.

Two members acknowledged that this works ok (great?) on such hands, but raised nice concerns about what to you lose. Surely, if 2C-2any-2NT in now unblanced hand, you lose the ability to describe a balanced hand with 2C-2D-2NT.

How do you play 2C-2D-2NT? I suspect you use that show a balanced hand too good for an opening 2NT bid. The way I handle these hands is I open 2D (multi). So the first rule, is multi 2D is forcing.. since it can be the weak two (normal) or this big balanced hand. The range I use is very much like the range most of you open 2C and rebid 2NT on.. a good 22 to 24.

So the first question becomes are you any worse off after you open 2D and rebid 2NT over the likely 2H/2S response than you would be if you opened 2C and rebid 2NT over 2D? The answer is no. The second question, is are you any worse off after opening 2D and partner makes some leap around bid assuming pass/correct for major? The answer is again no, as long as your partner follows to safet rules. Rule one, don't go beyond 3NT without five card major on own.. So, 2D-3NT by partner would be pass/correct showing 4-4 in the majors. While, 2D-4C/4D would be correct showing 5H and 4S or, 5S and 4H respectively.

You have an added benifit of opening 2D with bid balanced hands, sometimes they think that they can compete because you are weak and you catch them bidding too much. I can post a bunch of hands this way as well, as I have downloaded hundred of hands where one player has a balanced 22-24 hcp.

There really doens't seem to be much of a differnce on how you reach 2NT (2C-2D=2NT). You might thing that the hands where it might make a differnece is where responder would bid 2NT in response to multi to show a game going type hand, but when you hold 22 to 24, you partner will bid game going 2NT very rarely indeed, and even I can work out that slam here we come.

Turns out the problematic hands still be ones likt this... .

Quote

MP-27      knife      Dlr: South
Board 307  S JT43      Vul: E-W
            H QJ98     
amuse      D Q        madeline   
S 982      C Q863      S K7       
H 5432                  H T6       
D T964      jim-2      D K8732   
C 54        S AQ65      C KT72     
            H AK7     
            D AJ5     
            C AJ9     

South would start 2♦ and north will jump to 3NT (4-4 majors, preemptive). Now south has to decide... is 6♠ a good shot? HE has very little to go upon, and he hasn't described his hand. IF it had gone 2C-2D-2NT-3C-3S.. norht would be in much better position to decide. Slam was bid at 10 of 54 tables.

You have to seperate what you mean by 3NT (go to four preempt) versus 3♥ (go to three preempt). I would guess with this hand opposite a 3NT bid, I would blast 6♠, but opposite 3♥ just bid 3NT.

Ben

[Antoine Fourrière]

I don't believe in devolving bids to strong three-suiters, but I think you might do very well with strong balanced hands when responder has a major singleton because, yes, it makes much difference how you reach 2N. Responder cannot have five cards in the answered major (else bid the other major, or 3N directly, or maybe four of something).
So, the transfer for the impossible major may now be used to show a singleton.

2♦ 2♥ 2N 3♦ = ♥ singleton
2♦ 2♠ 2N 3♥ = ♠ singleton
2♦ 2♠ 2N 3♦ = ♥ transfer
2♦ 2♥ 2N 3♥ = ♠ transfer

Which might be reason enough to intervert 2♦ followed by 2N and a direct 2N on grounds of frequency.

[inquiry]

I hadn't t hought of this use of transfer into an impossible suit. Clever idea. Inverting the normal 2NT and the multi-2D/2NT rebid has a variety of merits.. if you open 2D with 22-24, they usually smart enough (and have to few points) to enter the bidding. Give them a few more potential points, and they might enter the bidding more often, opening door for juicy penalty. So that is a second arguement for inverting the point count.

A minor concern is that to show spade singleton, you wrongside the contract for hearts perhaps.. but you could also always use TEXAS.

But really, once again, a clever concept...

Ben

[sfbp]

inquiry, on Aug 6 2004, 08:55 AM, said:

In the other thread, I showed how the use of 2C opener followed by 2NT to show a three suiter was a very effective biding method. To do that, I used bridgebrowser by stephen pickett and hands actually played in the BBO. I posted 30 such hands (20 4441 and 10 4450 hands), and these where the first 20 and first 10 hands returned by the browser that meet the criteria for the 2C opening bid.

<snip>

Ben

Thanks for the praise, Ben. I am working like mad since receiving the first batch of data from Uday last week, to get the data in some sort of releaseable form. I can only hope he sees fit to continue the practice by updating me periodically.

The plan is to have it online almost immediately, with data disks available in a couple of weeks, probably when I get back from my trip. There are 2.8 million hand records from the Main room, and 1.3M from Tourneys and Team Games, so both should fit on a single CD easily. Currently this covers the period May 4 to July 25 but I am sincerely hoping Uday may find a way to go backwards as well as forwards from those date limits.

This post of yours gives rise to a thought I had about something similar that occurs in Precision. As such, I recently INVENTED a new convention to deal with this sort of problem after a 1♣ opener on a strong or very strong 3-suited hand. The intent was kind of different, but elements of my solution may possibly be useful and applicable to strong 2♣ openers as well.

Here's the deal: in precision ALL 16+ hands are opened 1C. Usually the opener drives the auction completely, but even after a negative response of 1D, the responder gets 1 chance to show a suit. It's a systemic problem that he cannot show TWO suits, because opener is too "busy being Rabbit" and trying to find what responder has that might fit with the 1♣ monster! After a positive response there is a way to do this, documented by Jannersten in his book, no way after negative response.

Here's a common sequence when opener has 4441 (any) 16+ in precision

1♣ (p) 1♦ (p)
1♥ (p) ?

At this point we have the worst of both worlds, opener has bid one of his three suits, and responder neither of his two suits. So here is the new treatment

After 1C 1D 1M, all bids by responder are normal and natural, EXCEPT 2♣

Responder bids 2C when he has a two suiter (at least 5-5, and if he is at the bottom end, at least 6-5) that does NOT include support for the major partner just bid (opener will never rebid 2C or 2D without at least 5 so the problem is limited to 1M rebids). Of course if responder can raise opener's major, whether it was 4-cards or 5-cards there's no big problem anyway.

If opener thinks he wants to hear about this shapely bust (see below) he bids a conventional 2♦ and responder now bids as follows (one might make more elaborate responses such as going up a level for more extreme hands):

The lowest step (2♥) shows the two lowest suits (minors)
The highest step (2NT) shows the two highest suits (the other major and clubs)
The middle step (2♠) shows the highest and lowest (black suits or pointy suits)

Of course, now opener knows exactly what to do if he has the problem 4441 hand which was forced to rebid 1M on a 4-carder. If he had a 5 or 6-card suit he may well ignore the 2♣ response by bidding anything EXCEPT 2♦

I may say that I noticed this happening several times in the last few months, so it is not a completely rare event. I actually bid without it to a 5C contract on 1 HCP at the NABC, and made an overtrick. With it, perhaps we might have found the slam??? Dream on.

I am sure that taking a second round response of 2C for this purpose costs almost nothing in the general scheme of things. This convention is rather similar to XYZ in some ways, in its use of the 2C bid.

What this beast lacks is a name. Since the treatment is for dealing with a shapely bust, all sorts of rude possibilities occur to the male writer of this essay. One person suggested "The Camel" (something to do with prehistoric brits making oblique references to the same thing during the days of Empire). Perhaps someone can offer a (hopefully humerous but not offensive) nice alternative?

Stephen