BBO Discussion Forums: Opener's 1-suiters - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Opener's 1-suiters 5 grades of strength and only 4 bidding options

#1 Guest_AlphaKappa_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2019-February-07, 07:55

Hand A. A Q 8 6 5 2 Q 8 5 K J 6 7


Hand B. A K Q 9 8 6 5 5 A 6 8 7 4


Hand C. A Q J 6 5 2 K J 5 K J J 7


Hand D. A K Q 10 8 6 A 5 6 2 K J 6


Hand E. A K Q 9 8 6 5 A 5 6 A Q 6



As Dealer you inherit of one of these 5 hands. You’re playing on BBO and both your card and your partner’s mention SAYC.

Hand A. You open 1, partner responds 1NT. You rebid 2 and partner passes, whatever values he has for his 1NT. I expect a 100% agreement

Hand B. You open 1, partner responds 1NT. You rebid 4 = 7 solid cards and a side Ace, no defensive tricks. I expect a 99% agreement

Hand C. You open 1, partner responds 1NT. You rebid 3 = 6 cards, 15 - 17 HCP, 5 to 6 losers, invitational, non-forcing (partner can pass). I expect a 100% agreement (at least among those who have read the ACBL booklet on SAYC, since that’s the official definition of the rebid)

Hand E. You open 2, partner responds 2 waiting. You rebid 2 giving partner a choice between game and slam in some denomination. I expect a 100% agreement

Hand D. The run-of-the-mill BBO player (curiously called ‘advanced’ there), rarely knows he has a problem with this 17 HCP-, 4 loser-, 8+ winner-, 3-defensive trick- hand. They open 1, partner responds 1NT and now

- some rebid 2, not realising that that is what they rebid with hand A. Partner passes whatever values he has for his 1NT. A shame, since if he has maximum values game (4 / 3NT) must have decent chances

- some rebid 3, not realising that that is what they rebid with hand C. Partner, with minimum values (e.g. A Q), passes. A shame, game was on

- some rebid 4, not realising that that is what they rebid with hand B. Partner, holding K and A Q, passes (rightly if opener has hand B). A shame, slam was on

Truth be said, this a genuine problem in SAYC. Eric Kokish once promoted a mechanism (frequently, but improperly, referred to as ‘Kokish relays’) allowing to open Hand D 2 and still stop short of game if partner is really broke. The French, playing SEF (nothing to be commended), have at their disposal 2 strong, artificial openings, 2 and 2 – the first irrevocably forcing to game and the latter for hands like Hand D. : strong but not enough to commit to game on their own.

What do YOU use ?
0

#2 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,779
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2019-February-07, 09:05

Hand E if I open 2 I rebid 3 to say I have a suit I'm happy to play a slam in opposite a singleton.

Hand A that partner passes automatically is far from true if you don't play WJS, what is partner supposed to do with KQJ to lots and out ?

Some people will fake 1-1N-3m bids on some hands of these types.
0

#3 User is offline   ahydra 

  • AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,665
  • Joined: 2009-September-09
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-February-07, 14:53

Hand D I'd treat as a max 3S rebid. We have 8 tricks or so, I'd expect partner to bump to game with two tricks.

Alternatively I could rebid 3N showing a good 6+ suit and a hand worth more than 1x-3x but less than 2C opener.

ahydra
0

#4 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,400
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-February-07, 16:21

View PostAlphaKappa, on 2019-February-07, 07:55, said:

Hand E. You open 2, partner responds 2 waiting. You rebid 2 giving partner a choice between game and slam in some denomination. I expect a 100% agreement

98% and counting (down). I rebid 3 imposing trumps and asking partner to show controls.

View PostAlphaKappa, on 2019-February-07, 07:55, said:

Truth be said, this a genuine problem in SAYC.
...
What do YOU use ?

2/1
1

#5 User is offline   akwoo 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 734
  • Joined: 2010-November-21

Posted 2019-February-07, 18:12

1) I think it's reasonable to have an agreement to bid 3N over 1N with Hand B - after all that's what you would do with a minor, and there isn't some other good meaning for the 3N bid.

2) With Hand D, I think the right rebid over 1N is 3C. You do want to force to game with this hand, and 3C tells partner that the QC is a useful card for slam.
0

#6 User is offline   miamijd 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 490
  • Joined: 2015-November-14

Posted 2019-February-08, 13:44

As you point out, in SAYC, hand D is a bit of a problem. If you and your partner have agreed that sometimes you will have to make a jump shift with a 3-card suit, then 3C stands out. But you don't want partner going nuts in clubs if you make this call. If partner raises clubs and you bid 4S, he should realize what's going on. If your partner won't play this, then you are stuck bidding a heavy 3S (and hoping partner makes any excuse to raise) or 4S (which would be my second choice after 3C, hoping there is no slam).

Playing 2/1, conventions like Gazilli (popular in Europe) or the Meckstroth Adjunct (2NT over 1NT as an artificial game force) help to solve this problem.

Cheers,
Mike
0

#7 User is offline   akwoo 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 734
  • Joined: 2010-November-21

Posted 2019-February-08, 15:53

View Postmiamijd, on 2019-February-08, 13:44, said:

As you point out, in SAYC, hand D is a bit of a problem. If you and your partner have agreed that sometimes you will have to make a jump shift with a 3-card suit, then 3C stands out. But you don't want partner going nuts in clubs if you make this call.


Why not? If partner has x xxx Kxx AQxxxx, you'd rather have 6 played from their side, but it's still a decent slam.
0

#8 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,585
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2019-February-08, 16:40

Rather than tweak sayc, which was never intended to be played by any partnership serious enough to want to tweak it, play something else. My suggestion would be to play some form of 2/1

In any event I do not agree with the OP

1S. 1N. 2S does not bar partner. He is expected to bid a 7 card
or longer suit over 2S

I may be mistaken but I have long played the Kokish relay, and have been coached by Kokish, and have understood that the main point was to allow differentiation between notrump ranges, not to get out opposite a weak response. I know of no Kokish relay player who would open 2C on any of the examples other than the strongest.

Those are the two most obvious disagreements I have but I generally disagree with most of the OP
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
2

#9 User is offline   miamijd 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 490
  • Joined: 2015-November-14

Posted 2019-February-08, 17:33

View Postakwoo, on 2019-February-08, 15:53, said:

Why not? If partner has x xxx Kxx AQxxxx, you'd rather have 6 played from their side, but it's still a decent slam.


Of course you are right in your example. My point was only that if partner has something like 1354, he shouldn't move over 4S, because when you bid that over 4C, it's very likely you have 6-7 good spades and only 3 clubs.

Mike
0

#10 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,416
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2019-February-09, 05:21

This all hinges on SAYC definition. Why restrict yourself? OK, if you play with a new partner you have to start somewhere, but think of it this way: if you agree to play a method that doesn't cope, why not for next time you play suggest variations? For me, the problem with these hands is [C], where you jump with a strong hand. If this is handled with a simple Gazzilli, then hand [D] is a jump in spades, defined as a trick short of a 2 open, self-sufficient suit.
0

#11 User is offline   msjennifer 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 950
  • Joined: 2013-August-03
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Variable private
  • Interests:Cricket,Photography,Paediatrics and Community Medicine.

Posted 2019-February-09, 07:38

Sir,When playing a slightly modified 2/1(Forcing to 2NT or 3 of a suit only),GAZZILLI,LTC.FWC(fast winners count),usually simplify the problematic hands to a good extent.As also employing the 4C/D openings as transfers to H/S,with 0,1,2 vulnerability based and 4H/S openings as 1,2,3,vulnerability based are useful.Using reverse DRURY in all seats is a useful tool.An opening bid of 3D for single suiters as invented by OMAR SHARIEF is handy in deals posed above.However,these are to be discussed and agreed beforehand. Personally ,I would count the suggested 2C opening hand as a FIVE losers hand..Over a 2C opening bid I do not like the virtues of a WAITING bid of 2D.(the precision like responses are easily adaptable and mostly acceptable.)
0

#12 User is offline   Caitlynne 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 233
  • Joined: 2015-October-09

Posted 2019-February-09, 15:16

With the AKQTxx, Ax, xx, KJx hand, I would rebid 3S after partner responds 1NT to my 1S opening.

This is a very good hand for the 3S rebid for sure - better than the AQJxxx, Ax, KJx, Qx 17 count - but as you have suggested, the jump rebid shows about a good 15 to 17 HCP and I have 17 HCP. There is nothing wrong with having just a tad extra for your bid when your bid is not only reasonably close to descriptive of your values, but also the most descriptive bid you have available in your system.

If you don't want such problems, you have to play something more sophisticated like Gazzilli. But that is hardly standard and is not advisable for a pick-up partnership anywhere, let alone on BBO.
0

#13 User is offline   iandayre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,096
  • Joined: 2013-December-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-February-09, 15:22

The first thing to understand is that SAYC is not a system. It is a set of simple agreements designed for beginning and intermediate players. It makes no pretense of being able to handle difficult bidding situations. I would say this is true of any basically standard set of agreements that include 5-card majors with a non-forcing 1NT response.

I completely agree with your evaluation of hands A and C. In earlier years, the auction 1S - 1NT - 4S showed a hand more like E. I expect that most players up to the advanced level would rebid 3S with both C and D. You are of course correct that this may be an underbid with D. The "false jump shift" of a 3C rebid is another option with D. When you reach that level of evaluation, it is one clue that it is time to abandon SAYC for more advanced methods.
0

#14 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,400
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-February-09, 15:47

View Postiandayre, on 2019-February-09, 15:22, said:

In earlier years, the auction 1S - 1NT - 4S showed a hand more like E. I expect that most players up to the advanced level would rebid 3S with both C and D. You are of course correct that this may be an underbid with D. The "false jump shift" of a 3C rebid is another option with D. When you reach that level of evaluation, it is one clue that it is time to abandon SAYC for more advanced methods.

I agree in general but I'm not so sure about your last point. The little old ladies at my local club have no reserve whatsoever about making a false jump shift to identify option D, they recognised it decades ago as a necessary and sufficient kludge to their 4-card major system which they have no intention of abandoning.

SAYC has lots wrong with it but this in particular is no big issue IMO.
0

#15 Guest_AlphaKappa_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2019-February-10, 07:50

It looks like there is some agreement that Hand D. poses a problem in SAYC.

(I have not understood those who suggest that 2/1 – I mean plain 2/1, Hardy’s or Lawrence’s version – is immune to the same syndrome: it is not. Those who prone to rebid 1 - 1N; 2 = 12 - 17 HCP are just sweeping the problem under the carpet. 2 must remain 12 - 14 (15) even in 2/1).


Among the ‘solutions’ some have suggested a jump-shift rebid 3 followed later by a return to Spades. I am of the opinion that, with this specific hand, that may work nice. Even though there is always a risk that, in some rare occasions, the situation will get out of control. For instance, if partner, having, rightly, understood the rebid as forcing to game, uses ‘fast arrival’ with a really weak hand and runs immediately to 5 (with only 4 cards …); will you still bid 5 ? Let alone that not all Hand D.-type of hands will have so an appetising suit-fragment to jump-shift to …


As to add vitamins to 2/1 :

Add Gazzilli to your 2/1 and you’ll be all set. 1 - 1N and you rebid 2 artificial with hand D. (keeping 3 for hand C.). In the version of Gazzilli I play, I place the line between lower and upper hands at 17 HCP (other place it at 16 HCP). After 2 Gazzilli you are going to be able to describe Hand D. whether or not partner relays 2. The only problem with Gazzilli is that I am still to meet a player (apart from those to whom I have taught the convention myself) who plays it. All more true on BBO.

Meckstroth Adjunct would do the job as well, less efficiently than Gazzilli though. And again, apart from a one Rodwel who has ever heard of the Meckstroth Adjunct ?



Another solution, perhaps simpler to implement, is to tweak the 2 opening in such a way that it still allows for stopping short of game if partner does not contribute enough meat. Kokish relays do that. A simpler scheme would be to agree that truly forcing-to-game 2 hands start by rebidding 2, totally artificial. If you rebid anything else (2, 2N, 3, 3, 3) it means that you have a fairly strong hand (23 - 24 HCP NT or a 17+ HCP, 8-trick, 3-defensive-trick, less than 4-loser, 6+-card 1 suiter) but not to the point that you can force to game on your own. Over 2 - 2; 2 (artificial, GF) it is simple to write down something sensible on what the next action by partner should be.
0

#16 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,372
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2019-February-10, 12:23

Quote

Hand D. ♠ A K Q 10 8 6 ♥ A 5 ♦ 6 2 ♣ K J 6
- some rebid 3♠, not realising that that is what they rebid with hand C. Partner, with minimum values (e.g. ♦ A Q), passes. A shame, game was on
- some rebid 4♠, not realising that that is what they rebid with hand B. Partner, holding ♥ K and ♦ A Q, passes (rightly if opener has hand B). A shame, slam was on

I don't know why you evaluate hand D as so strong. I would want slightly stronger to jump shift.
If partner has DAQ, game might be on, but I wouldn't necessarily want to be there. You have 2 heart/club losers for sure. spades might be 4-1 J not dropping. DK might be off. You have 2nd club loser unless CAQ onside. If DK is off you have 2nd club loser even if CAQ is onside since you can't lead twice from dummy. On bad days you have 3 club losers, sometimes after a misguess on your one entry to dummy.
Now if you add the HK, partner will bid game, but again I definitely don't want to be in slam for similar reasoning. To make just a (slightly below!) breakeven slam you need partner to have SJ, HK, CQ, DAQ! Then basically you just need diamond finesse and no club ruff opening lead.


Anyway, with stronger example for hand D:-You should not be worried about sequence 1s-1nt-3c-5c except when play with beginner. Experienced players all know 3c is suspect and will not randomly jump 5c without at least say 6 clubs.
-obvious solutions are Gazzilli or strong club system if played with regular partner. Though of course neither are totally free of loss.
0

#17 User is offline   HardVector 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 197
  • Joined: 2018-May-28

Posted 2019-February-14, 18:07

Compare hand B with D. I don't notice alot of people disagreeing with the idea of hand B rebidding game with that, and I agree. So how can you want to be in game with B, and be willing to stop short with D? I'd jump-shift to 3 with D.
0

#18 User is offline   akwoo 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 734
  • Joined: 2010-November-21

Posted 2019-February-14, 21:41

View PostHardVector, on 2019-February-14, 18:07, said:

Compare hand B with D. I don't notice alot of people disagreeing with the idea of hand B rebidding game with that, and I agree. So how can you want to be in game with B, and be willing to stop short with D? I'd jump-shift to 3 with D.


Because there is a second way a jump can win with B, namely that it might shut opponents out of a making 4 (or even 5) game.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users