[the_dude]

Regional swiss against average opponents

---

- 3C is artificial GF and pretty much forced upon us by our 2/1 system - not much else there is forcing.
- 3C followed by 4H shows good extras (compared to jumping to 4H the previous round) but is still passable.

I still don't feel like I've done justice to my hand, with the controls and running suit.

Options: I could jump straight to 6♥, try an invitational-sounding 5♥ (partner would probably have worked it out), or downgrade to 4♥ opposite his presumed shortness in spades.

What do you think? Outside of changing our system (ie secondary jumps forcing or an obscure convention) is there any other way to handle this hand using expert-standard-ish 2/1?

[helene_t]

Do you play strong jump shifts? If so, why doesn't this hand qualify?

[ArtK78]

I bid 4♥.

The hand is not good enough to make a unilateral slam move beyond game. Partner could have a very good hand, and you could still be off 2 top clubs, and possibly 3:

x
AKJxx
KQJx
Qxx

AK of clubs and a club ruff.

Or, partner could have everything but the two rounded suit aces, and on a club lead they get a ruff (maybe even two!).

Bidding 4♥ on this sequence shows significant values. If partner cannot act over 4♥, then you are probably high enough.

[the_dude]

helene_t, on 2014-January-06, 10:00, said:

Do you play strong jump shifts? If so, why doesn't this hand qualify?

No ... we play 1H - 2S shows invitational values and a decent 6cd suit (I really hate having to jump to 3S with that hand on this auction). Not sure about the comparitive merits of that agreement but clearly I'd like to be playing strong JS here

Even if we didn't play this, there are a few other 1H-2S gadgets we've considered trying that would preclude strong JS...

[kenrexford]

The auction is again easier is you just set hearts as trumps. Had you responded 2 partner would have bid 2D and you could have set hearts as trumps with a game force. You would also have information as to whether partner has a spade fit next, as a non cue of spades would show 2+ spades.

This is a common problem with the same solution always working, and yet few just concede the premise and move forward.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-06, 10:25, said:

.... Had you responded 2C partner would have bid 2D .....

Ken meant to say 2C! ( GF, maybe artificial ) .... one of his pet conventions .

[kenrexford]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-January-06, 11:09, said:

Ken meant to say 2C! ( GF, maybe artificial ) .... one of his pet conventions .

Yes. If 2C is gf and either real clubs or anything with a fit for Openers major. This routinely avoids the problem of the painful sequences that otherwise result.

BTW, the ACBL bulletin had a similar hand AKQxx Jxx Qx Axx. The bidding challenge folks started 1S and ended in 5S or 6S when 7S makes. My sequence starts 2C, Opener re bids 2D, hearts set 2H. Opener now can picture splinter 4C. Responder can count 12 tricks in 6S at that point and also knows that 7S makes if Opener has the heart Ace plus three spafes. There's a lot of space left to complete that picture.

[FrancesHinden]

the_dude, on 2014-January-06, 09:54, said:

Regional swiss against average opponents

What do you think? Outside of changing our system (ie secondary jumps forcing or an obscure convention) is there any other way to handle this hand using expert-standard-ish 2/1?

One way to handle this using 'expert-standard-ish' 2/1 is to respond with 1NT with a 3-card limit raise in hearts. Then you can play 1H-1S-2m-3H as natural and forcing. This isn't obscure. (Even if you play semi-forcing NT, if partner passes 1NT on a balanced 11- or 12-count it is usually - or at least often - at least a good a contract as 3H)

When I first learned 2/1 I assumed that this sequence ought to be forcing because of this inference and was surprised to be told that most people don't play it that way.

So 1H-1NT-2m-3H is invitational with 3-card support. You might miss a bigger spade fit in favour of an 8-card heart fit sometimes when opener is not strong enough to reverse, but it enormously simplifies the game forcing hands.

I don't believe you can successfully and systemically respond 2C on this type of hand without having detailed artificial follow-ups. I'm all in favour on, say, a 4324 but not with a 6313.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-06, 14:38, said:

One way to handle this using 'expert-standard-ish' 2/1 is to respond with 1NT with a 3-card limit raise in hearts. Then you can play 1H-1S-2m-3H as natural and forcing. This isn't obscure. (Even if you play semi-forcing NT, if partner passes 1NT on a balanced 11- or 12-count it is usually - or at least often - at least a good a contract as 3H)

When I first learned 2/1 I assumed that this sequence ought to be forcing because of this inference and was surprised to be told that most people don't play it that way.

So 1H-1NT-2m-3H is invitational with 3-card support. You might miss a bigger spade fit in favour of an 8-card heart fit sometimes when opener is not strong enough to reverse, but it enormously simplifies the game forcing hands.

I don't believe you can successfully and systemically respond 2C on this type of hand without having detailed artificial follow-ups. I'm all in favour on, say, a 4324 but not with a 6313.

truth be told, I also do exactly what you suggest. However, I typically will use the 1S. ..3M sequence when I have shortness in clubs. The 2C route is the option is balanced or short diamonds.

[CSGibson]

the game forcing hand with 5+ spades and a 3 card heart fit is a problem hand. Ken and Frances detail some solutions, I have another - simply use 2♠ to show that hand type. An invitational jump shift in spades should be a low priority, you can easily show that hand with other methods. This hand screams for a conventional solution.

[lowerline]

the_dude, on 2014-January-06, 10:05, said:

No ... we play 1H - 2S shows invitational values and a decent 6cd suit (I really hate having to jump to 3S with that hand on this auction). Not sure about the comparitive merits of that agreement but clearly I'd like to be playing strong JS here

Even if we didn't play this, there are a few other 1H-2S gadgets we've considered trying that would preclude strong JS...

In that case your 3♠ rebid would have been GF... (otherwise you would have started with a 2♠ response). So why did you bid 4SF?

Steven

[gnasher]

lowerline, on 2014-January-07, 07:45, said:

In that case your 3♠ rebid would have been GF... (otherwise you would have started with a 2♠ response). So why did you bid 4SF?

1♥-1♠;2♦-3♠ risks reaching 4♠ when we should be in 4♥. What would opener bid with x AK9xx KQxx xxx?

[gnasher]

Another possible solution is to play 1♥-1♠;2♦-3♣;3NT-4♣ as agreeing hearts. A natural 4♣ bid isn't especially common, so it might be worth giving it up in exchange for improved slam auctions.

Frances's approach works better, though.

[steve2005]

helene_t, on 2014-January-06, 10:00, said:

Do you play strong jump shifts? If so, why doesn't this hand qualify?

that's what I voted for (other)not everyone plays strong jump-shifts but if u do this is perfect

[aguahombre]

the_dude, on 2014-January-06, 09:54, said:

- 3C is artificial GF and pretty much forced upon us by our 2/1 system - not much else there is forcing.
- 3C followed by 4H shows good extras (compared to jumping to 4H the previous round) but is still passable.

I still don't feel like I've done justice to my hand, with the controls and running suit.

I am not as uncomfortable with your conditions as many posters are; nor do I feel unfullfilled and unwilling to bid 4♥ now. Partner will probably think I have bid- around rather than splintered because I was too strong for that, and didn't have a direct trump-setting (for hearts) pattern. I have one fewer heart to offset the great side source, but Partner should move on with Club/heart primes.

1H-1S might sometimes create ugliness; but, this hand isn't the poster boy for that.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2014-January-07, 10:22, said:

Another possible solution is to play 1♥-1♠;2♦-3♣;3NT-4♣ as agreeing hearts. A natural 4♣ bid isn't especially common, so it might be worth giving it up in exchange for improved slam auctions.

Frances's approach works better, though.

1♥-1♠;2♦-3♣ is a known problem sequence, in particular when you do not play strong jump shifts.
I like the Meckwell solution (popular in some US expert circles) best:
Play 1♥-2♠ as 5-10 or so (a hand that would have bid 1♠ then 2♠).
Play 1♥-1♠;2♦-2♠ as game forcing.

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

For those who are interested, the nuances of my solution:

If you start with 2C with the hands that are short in diamonds or balanced, partner usually bids 2D, which allows the game force and fit establishment at the two level. This has to be good. When partner re bids 2S instead , you can shift focus and raise spades instead.

If you go through 1S and then game force with 3H , partner assumes a likely diamond fragment, and hence short clubs.

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2014-January-07, 10:22, said:

Another possible solution is to play...

And yet another is to play a 1NT response as GF with spades and a 1♠ response as, effectively, a forcing NT.

kenrexford, on 2014-January-08, 07:18, said:

For those who are interested, the nuances of my solution:

Funnily enough, I feel your solution has some things in common with my relay-based structure. In that, Responder initiates a GF by 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT (min <4♠) - 2♣. Both methods are effectively using the 2♣ bid just to establish a game-forcing auction and simplify some things. The difference is that I am exlcuding some of Opener's hands (4 spades or extra values) and you are excluding some of Responder's (those with club shortage). Proof* that you can find patterns in bidding theory from practically any reasonably-based methods.


*: OK, I am actually a mathematician so my standards of proof are actually a little higher than this. It is pretty amazing how often you see recurring themes and ideas in unbelievably different contexts though.

[kenrexford]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-10, 11:25, said:

Proof* that you can find patterns in bidding theory from practically any reasonably-based methods.


*: OK, I am actually a mathematician so my standards of proof are actually a little higher than this. It is pretty amazing how often you see recurring themes and ideas in unbelievably different contexts though.

My thoughts exactly. From a theory perspective, my years of playing precision, K-S, and canapé systems helped influence my understanding of (and solutions for problems in) 2/1 GF, as well as wild experimental approaches. I also find themes running through alternative auctions. I also find that things translate in strange ways.

Consider, for example, my own solution for a problem hand that recurs somewhat frequently. You have ♠x ♥AKJx ♦AKxxx ♣Jxx. After opening 1♦, partner bids the expected 1♠. What next?

1NT seems like a gross misbid, both as to shape and playing strength. Having played a 1♦ opening as promising shortness somewhere for years, I hate this auction, because my 1NT bid in that alternative sequence shows four hearts (with 1-3-5-4, I would have rebid 2♣). Not having that agreement, a 1NT rebid buries the nature of the hand. I then thought about canapé theory. If a canapé opening makes sense, why not a canapé rebid? If you start this sequence 1♦ and then rebid 2♣, you start with a mild mis-description. You are only one card off, but you leave the HCP strength open (which is good) and partner expects unbalanced (with likely shortness in spades). All good. You also know that partner often rebids a "courtesy correct" 2♦, which allows you to complete pattern by bidding 2♥. If this sequence is "delayed canapé," partner will know after three bids that the hearts are equal to or longer than the clubs (1354 not possible, but 1-4-4-4 or 1-4-5-3 likely), with extras (but insufficient for a reverse). The point is not whether this works or makes sense (but from experience it does). The point is that canapé in an unexpected situation helps non-canapé sequences. (Consider also that canapé is present in Walsh and part of x-y-z).

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-10, 13:52, said:

My thoughts exactly. From a theory perspective, my years of playing precision, K-S, and canapé systems helped influence my understanding of (and solutions for problems in) 2/1 GF, as well as wild experimental approaches. I also find themes running through alternative auctions. I also find that things translate in strange ways.

Conversely, my years of playing and tweaking 2/1 haven't helped my understanding of K-S, Acol, or Canape systems. There are inferences/nuances from the opening bid onward which eliminate or create entirely different loopholes. But Precision is a different story, since the same stuff can pretty-much be applied to Precision 2/1 auctions after 1M is opened.