32519

On page 4 of this thread (post 61 and post 70) I gave a much simpler method for bidding 20-21 HCP 5332 hands containing a 5-card major which saves both a level of bidding space AND guarantees that the 5-card major comes into play. I’m going to flesh those posts out a bit further here. 2/1 and SAYC both open 2♣ with 22+ HCP (balanced or playing equivalent when unbalanced). The two systems differ regarding the “waiting”/negative response. 2♦ is “waiting” in both systems, usually 5-7 HCP. 2♥ is an automatic “double negative” in 2/1 promising a maximum of 5 HCP in Queens and Jacks. The cheapest available minor suit is often played as the “second negative” in SAYC. Anything else promises 8+ HCP. Moving the 20-21 HCP 5332 hands into the 2♣ bid is an easy partnership adjustment. The partnership will both be aware that the 22+ HCP balanced or playing equivalent when unbalanced may be skewed slightly by this adjustment. This will become evident in the subsequent bidding. Playing 2/1 1. After 2♣-2♦ you are in a game forcing sequence. You get to show the 5-card suit a level lower with zero memory load. You get to know immediately about a 5-3 fit. With minimal values for the opening bid/response, the auction is unlikely to progress beyond 3NT/4M. 2. After 2♣-2♥ (double negative), opener simply passes when the 5-card major is ♥. Unfortunately the strong hand is exposed on table but those vital trumps come into play which can stop the opponents running your 2-card suit in a 2NT contract. You are on the same level as a 2NT contract but now with a much better chance of making. 3. After 2♣-2♥ (double negative), opener simply corrects to 2♠ when the 5-card major is ♠. Again, those vital trumps come into play which can stop the opponents running your 2-card suit in a 2NT contract. You are on the same level as a 2NT contract but now with a much better chance of making. 4. Your 2NT bids are now free from the extremely low probability of containing a 5-card major. The vital bidding space consumed by PS continuations on level 3 and higher are now freed up for much more effective use. Choose something useful. 5. And here’s another big bonus. No more PS continuations REDUCES THE OVERALL MEMORY LOAD. This can become critical in long matches when mental fatigue starts setting in and errors start increasing. Playing SAYC This is open for further discussion. PS does not form part of SAYC. Do the regulatory authorities in the USA allow for modifications? If yes, go the same route as suggested for 2/1 above.

The probability of being dealt a 20-21 HCP hand, ANY DISTRIBUTION, is a miserly 1.02%. Once you start adding constraints such as a 5-card major, the numbers fall away hopelessly. So I stick to my 0.08% probability of opener being dealt a 5332 hand. Bidding space is a very scarce, and to be highly treasured, resource. To WASTE a scarce resource on a hand pattern with such a low probability of occurrence has just got to be one of the dumbest things to do!

Mike, no. Forget about that other thread. We’ve been there and there is no need to dig it up again. This is about scientific continuation bidding agreements. I have seen a couple that really get lengthy. Some of the Jacoby 2NT continuations is a good example. My former partner (he was forced to leave the club due to medical problems) was actually a fairly decent player but the laziest learner I have ever known. We actually did have a set of typed notes on our system agreements but this guy was just too lazy to ever read them. Instead he tried to remember everything through “botching the bidding” at our local club and then trying not to repeat the mistake again. Certain agreements (which I regarded as simple to remember) had to eventually be dropped because this guy NEVER got them right. An example here is 2-Way Reverse Drury. When the partnership is getting elementary agreements wrong, how many of the more elaborate/scientific agreements are you getting wrong?

These forums are crammed with threads/posts ranging from the mundane to the bizarre. The Non-Natural Forum in particular contains a number of truly interesting/unusual systems. That has already been looked at (no need to go there again). Instead, this thread is all about elaborate/scientific continuation structures versus natural bidding. You can start off by reading this. These forums contain plenty of elaborate/scientific continuation bidding structures for many common/popular conventions/methods. Some examples: 1. Multi (both offence and defence) 2. Jacoby 2NT 3. Puppet Stayman 4. Inverted Minor Suit Raises 5. Flannery/Kaplan Inversion 6. Canapé openings and continuations 7. Agreements on bidding on after an artificial strong 2♣ opening 8. Defence to a 1NT opening bid 9. Defence to strong artificial Club Systems The more elaborate/scientific your agreements are, the more you are adding to the memory load. The memory load gets compounded by the number of these elaborate/scientific methods forming part of your agreements. At the end of the day, when you sit examining the traveller (at match points), how many times did you end up in a superior contract versus the rest of the field using scientific methods? The greater the field, the more meaningful the end result. I am not referring to making an additional trick through superior declarer play and/or inferior defensive play. This is solely about landing in a superior contract. Now for the corollary: How many times did you end up in an inferior contract when either one or both partners couldn’t remember all the continuation bids? I will be open an honest enough to admit that it has happened to me more than once (either myself or my partner who forgot the continuation bidding). When we landed in the same spot as everyone else using fancy methods, the red flags went up. Why bother when it costs us when we forget? What about you?

Yes, I think it's very important to be able to run from 2NT Too many 2NT contracts are going down. Now what do you think is a contributing factor to this statistic? Answer: Not enough partnerships have an escape mechanism when responder is holding a bust opposite a 20-21 HCP balanced hand. Here is another question to consider: Why don’t enough partnerships have an escape mechanism when responder is holding a bust opposite a 20-21 HCP balanced hand? Answer: Their partnership bidding agreement doesn’t have any room left for an escape mechanism. Which leads me to my final question: Why doesn’t their partnership bidding agreement have any room left for an escape mechanism? Answer: All the available bidding room left has been consumed by a convention called Puppet Stayman, a 5332 holding with 20-21 HCP which has such a low probability of occurring, the bidding space consumed by PS can be much better utilised for something else such as Garbage Stayman / Crawling Stayman / signing off in 4m when responder has a long minor suit bust. I absolutely refuse to accept that top flight players don’t have an escape mechanism with a bust hand opposite a 2NT balanced hand. OK for the average club/tournament player. Not OK for a top flight player!

Why have you posted this here? In the end everything comes down to your system agreements. From your post above it appears as though you have proper agreements. So its a simple thing to consult your notes. I can understand 2/1 players having an argument about this hand. Why? In 2/1, 2♦ is the waiting bid and 2♥ is the negative bid (0-5 HCP in Queens and Jacks). After a negative response the auction is forcing to a) 2NT, b) 3 of openers major, or c) 4 of openers minor. It all depends on openers second bid. After 2♦ as waiting, the auction is 100% game forcing. 2/1 players will probably fight about the following: Responder has only 4 HCP (the ♦A). Now the response doesn’t fall into either 2♦ or 2♥.

Zel My guess is that you are spot on here. With 0-2 HCP, the 2NT bid is getting passed out. With 3-4 HCP, the adventuress are lifting it to 3NT and hoping for the best. I don't have any problems with this approach for the average club/tournament player. But what do top flight players do? Say as responder you are dealt a 7-card minor and zero HCP. With no entry to the hand, wouldn't you want to be in 4 of the minor instead of 2NT? At MP, taking 10 tricks in a minor scores 130 where 2NT taking 8 tricks scores 120.

The SAYC Stock Convention Card available on BBO for all to use clearly says 13+ to open the bidding, last updated on 16 March 2006. I have the 2006 SAYC Booklet. Page 3 says a minimum opening is 13-15 HCP. BBO and the booklet in my posession both would appear to be outdated according to your post.

1. You haven't addressed the rest of Rainer's issues with this hand; "How do you differentiate single suiters in the minors from minor two suiters?" 2. MSS works here because opener had a 4-card minor. What do you do when opener is 4432 or 4423? 3. How do you sign off in 4m with a minor suit bust?

Guys, I think I have come up with a simple, yet very workable solution to Rainer’s quiz on this hand. Utilize the principle of “consuming bidding space to save bidding space.” So, to question 1 I suggest the following: 2NT-4♠ (♠ void and at least 5/5 in the minors) From this point forward you can use all your slam exploring devices e.g. voidwood, 6-card Blackwood etc for the minors. I have no intention of being prescriptive as to the methods you must follow. Reaching the ♦ grand slam is easy now. In question 2 the ♠ void becomes a ♥ void. I suggest the following bidding sequence: 2NT-4♥ (♥ void and at least 5/5 in the minors) 5♦ (signoff, to play, the ♥ void doesn’t help my hand in any way) To show a 2/1 holding in the majors, have a look at the solution proposed by Mike777. After 2NT-3♠-4♦-4♠ The 4♠ bid could now show a ♠ singleton All I need to do now is to sew up the rest of my bidding agreements after a 2NT opener. How are the rest of you progressing with fixing this hole in your agreements that Rainer has exposed?

Stefanie, thanks for this suggestion. It makes good sense. The opening bid of 13 HCP for SAYC and 12 HCP for 2/1 is correct. The SAYC Booklet I have doesn’t say explicitly the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt. I made the assumption that it is the same as for a 2-level pre-empt with the exception of having an additional card in the suit bid. I would naturally assume that for 2/1, a 3-level pre-empt would promise the same HCP range as a 2-level pre-empt. The BBO notes say 5-11 HCP for both SAYC and 2/1 for a 2-level pre-empt. Neither says what the HCP range for a 3-level pre-empt is. However, according to Paul Thurston, in 2/1 a 3-level pre-empt promises less than 10 HCP. Is there anybody who can say whether Paul Thurston is still correct or if the “less than 10 HCP” statement has now become something else e.g. 5-11 HCP?

If you’re unhappy with the numbers I am quoting, effectively you’re questioning the integrity of the numbers being spat out by BBO’s deal generator.

In this thread, Rainer Herrmann asked, Minors over 2NT: Do you have good agreements? If you still haven’t been convinced to dump Puppet Stayman, the post below has been copied in from the above thread. Minors Over 2NT: Do you have good agreements? Rainer Herrmann: This thread of yours appears to have stumped the panel of posters. I have no idea if this has happened before. A handful of people have offered a bidding sequence for the actual hand posted. Thus far, no one has offered a TOTAL GOOD AGREEMENT as suggested in the thread title. My own bidding agreements over 2NT have a much greater focus on the majors. I’m guessing that other regular posters are guilty of the same error as myself. You have opened up a hole in my bidding structures which I am diligently working on to plug. What are my objectives over 2NT? I still want to be able to retain as many as possible of the following: 1. Stayman / Garbage Stayman / Crawling Stayman 2. Jacoby Transfer Bids 3. Smolen (both 5/4 and 6/4 holdings) 4. Minor Suit Stayman / 4-Way transfer bids. As I cannot have both, once I have managed to plug the hole in my bidding agreements, it will become evident which one gets dumped. 5. The ability to show 5/5 in the minors with no slam interest 6. The ability to show 5/5 in the minors with slam interest 7. The ability to sign off in 4 of a minor with a minor suit bust 8. The ability to transfer into a minor suit single suiter and then continue with slam exploration with the appropriate hand 9. Texas / SA Texas in my current agreements will need to go to make room for 5-8 above. This will be accommodated via Jacoby Transfer Bids followed by a raise to game. I still need to decide exactly what I will use the 4♣ and 4♦ bids for now. 10. Gerber has long ago been dumped in favour of a quantitative 4NT I am already facing some creative thinking to restructure my current agreements to accommodate all of the above. I am now asking this for the third time; how do you also include Puppet Stayman in amongst a very scarce resource i.e. available bidding space? To complicate this jigsaw puzzle even further; I need to be able to cope with opposition interference. To keep on insisting retaining Puppet Stayman on a 0.08% probability of opener holding such a hand seems even more ludicrous when the probability of responder holding a minor suit orientated hand is considerably higher. A full two levels of bidding space has been consumed before the partnership can even begin exploring for the best spot. Here are some more probabilities coming from BBO’s deal generator: 0/3 ♠ 0/1 ♥ 0/13 ♦ 0/13 ♣ 0-20 HCP = 3.24% X 2 = 6.48% (to include the other major as well) 0/2 ♠ 0/2 ♥ 0/13 ♦ 0/13 ♣ 0-20 HCP = 5.09% That is a total probability of 11.57% of responder being dealt a minor suit orientated hand opposite a 0.08% probability of opener being dealt a 20-21 HCP hand containing a 5-card major. Go figure!

Minors Over 2NT: Do you have good agreements? Rainer Herrmann: This thread of yours appears to have stumped the panel of posters. I have no idea if this has happened before. A handful of people have offered a bidding sequence for the actual hand posted. Thus far, no one has offered a TOTAL GOOD AGREEMENT as suggested in the thread title. My own bidding agreements over 2NT have a much greater focus on the majors. I’m guessing that other regular posters are guilty of the same error as myself. You have opened up a hole in my bidding structures which I am diligently working on to plug. What are my objectives over 2NT? I still want to be able to retain as many as possible of the following: 1. Stayman / Garbage Stayman / Crawling Stayman 2. Jacoby Transfer Bids 3. Smolen (both 5/4 and 6/4 holdings) 4. Minor Suit Stayman / 4-Way transfer bids. As I cannot have both, once I have managed to plug the hole in my bidding agreements, it will become evident which one gets dumped. 5. The ability to show 5/5 in the minors with no slam interest 6. The ability to show 5/5 in the minors with slam interest 7. The ability to sign off in 4 of a minor with a minor suit bust 8. The ability to transfer into a minor suit single suiter and then continue with slam exploration with the appropriate hand 9. Texas / SA Texas in my current agreements will need to go to make room for 5-8 above. This will be accommodated via Jacoby Transfer Bids followed by a raise to game. I still need to decide exactly what I will use the 4♣ and 4♦ bids for now. 10. Gerber has long ago been dumped in favour of a quantitative 4NT I am already facing some creative thinking to restructure my current agreements to accommodate all of the above. I am now asking this for the third time; how do you also include Puppet Stayman in amongst a very scarce resource i.e. available bidding space? To complicate this jigsaw puzzle even further; I need to be able to cope with opposition interference. Great stuff Rainer. We want to see more of these sorts of threads!

What are you fussing about? If the ♥K is offside, the slam can never make.

Hrothgar’s post got me scratching a bit further on the card origins. The four suits now used in most of the world — spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs — originated in France in about 1480. The trèfle (club) was probably derived from the acorn and the pique (spade) from the leaf of the German suits. The names "pique" and "spade", however, may have derived from the sword of the Italian suits. In England, the French suits were eventually used, although the earliest decks had the Italian suits. Also in the 15th century, Europeans changed the court cards to represent European royalty and attendants, originally "king", "chevalier" (knight), and "knave". The original meaning of knave was male child (cf German Knabe), so in this context the character could represent the "prince", son to the King and Queen; the meaning servant developed later. Decks of 56 cards containing in each suit a King, Queen, Knight, and Valet (from the French tarot court) were common. Court cards designed in the 16th century in the manufacturing centre of Rouen became the standard design in England, while a Parisian design became standard in France. Both the Parisian and Rouennais court cards were named after historical and mythological heroes and heroines. The Parisian names have become more common in modern use, even with cards of Rouennais design. King of Spades: King David of the Hebrew Bible King of Hearts: Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great, King of the Franks from 768 King of Diamonds: Emperor Julius Caesar King of Clubs: Alexander the Great, Greek king of Macedon Queen of Spades: Athena from Greek mythology, also known as Pallas Athena, the goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, just warfare, mathematics, strength, strategy, the arts, crafts, and skill. Queen of Hearts: Judith, a deuterocanonical book, included in the Septuagint and the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christian Old Testament of the Bible, but excluded by Jews and Protestants. Queen of Diamonds: Rachel, from the Bible and favourite wife of Jacob Queen of Clubs: Argine (possibly an anagram for Regina, which is Latin for queen). Another possibility is Argea (a name borne by four minor characters in Greek mythology). Jack of Spades: Ogier the Dane/Holger Danske, a knight of Charlemagne Jack of Hearts: La Hire, a French military commander during the Hundred Year’s War. He was a comrade-in-arms to Joan of Arc and a member of Charles VII’s court. Jack of Diamonds: Hector (from Greek mythology) was a Trojan prince and the greatest fighter for Troy in the Trojan War. Jack of Clubs: Judas Maccabeus; he led the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire (167–160 BC) and is acclaimed as one of the greatest warriors in Jewish history alongside Joshua, Gideon and David.

Some numbers to add to this discussion: The probabilities of being dealt a minor suit orientated hand in the slam zone opposite a 2NT: 5/4 in the minors and 8-20 HCP = 5.22% 5/5 in the minors and 8-20 HCP = 0.67% 6/5 in the minors and 8-20 HCP = 0.20% 6/6 in the minors and 8-20 HCP = 0.01% Total.......................................= 6.10% The probabilities of being dealt a minor suit orientated hand in the game zone opposite a 2NT: 5/4 in the minors and 5-7 HCP = 1.44% 5/5 in the minors and 5-7 HCP = 0.18% 6/5 in the minors and 5-7 HCP = 0.06% 6/6 in the minors and 5-7 HCP = 0.00% (so remote as to be negligible) Total......................................= 1.68% The probabilities of being dealt a minor suit orientated hand in the bust zone opposite a 2NT: 5/4 in the minors and 0-4 HCP = 0.62% 5/5 in the minors and 0-4 HCP = 0.08% 6/5 in the minors and 0-4 HCP = 0.02% 6/6 in the minors and 0-4 HCP = 0.00% (so remote as to be negligible) Total......................................= 0.72% Obviously the one to focus on is the 5/4 minor suit holding which favours retaining MSS in our bidding structures. If you’re a top flight player, inevitably you will need an agreement on how to sign off in 4 of either minor with a bust minor suit holding. Tell us what your agreement is. At a 0.72% probability of being dealt such a hand, I believe it worthwhile for top flight players to have such an agreement. 4-Way transfer bids now come to mind, at worst getting you into a 5-2 fit with a bust hand opposite a 2NT. Rainer asked: Minors over 2NT – Do you have good agreements? This has got to include bust minor suit orientated hands as well.

These minor suit orientated hands after a 2NT opening cannot be seen in isolation. I am looking for constructive (logical) bidding agreements that can adequately describe these sorts of hands without forgetting how (my) other bidding agreements may be affected e.g. 1. Texas / SA Texas when transferring into a 6-card major 2. Gerber (for those who still use Gerber over 1NT/2NT) 3. 4-Way transfer bids 4. Minor Suit Stayman 5. Smolen (usually 5/4 in the majors but can also be 6/4) 6. Puppet Stayman (this one has now been ruled out by both Zelandakh and Frances Hinden when 5/5 in the minors) Mike777’s suggestion is similar to what I was considering but I hit a wall when opener doesn’t have a 4-card minor. What this thread hasn’t addressed yet is 5/5 in the minors and a bust. How do you sign off in 4 of either minor with a bust?

What is your next bid to advertise 5-5 in the minors? MSS is more often than not made with a 5-4 holding in the minors. My question to you is the same one I asked Mike777. After MSS how does your bidding continue when opener has a 4432 or 4423 holding (or even 5332 for that matter)?

This is very close to what I was toying with as well. MSS works here because opener had a 4-card minor. What do you do after MSS and opener has a 4432 or 4423 holding?

As a Puppet player, how does your bidding change when 5/5 in the minors and 3/0 in the majors? After 2NT-3♣ (Puppet Stayman) 3♦ (no 5-card major) how do you continue for the minor suit slam try?

How do you differentiate between a ♠ singleton and a ♠ void? This thread of Rainer has really caught my interest.

I have upvoted this post. I have a further question. If the minor suits were 5/5 and 3/0 in the majors, how do the Puppet Stayman players continue with the bidding to find the minor suit slam?

I am currently running a class for beginners in my hometown. Technically none of the players are “true beginners” as they have all been playing bridge for years. It’s just that their knowledge and skills of the game is extremely limited, coming from rubber bridge players whose knowledge of the game is equally limited. I have chosen (rightly or wrongly) to teach them SAYC for two reasons: 1. It may well be the least complicated of all 5-card major based systems. 2. I understand SAYC to be the BBO default system. I know that at least two of the players attending the classes from time-to-time play on BBO. As soon as I can see that they are playing SAYC with a reasonable amount of competency I intend giving them a “conversion” table summarising the bids etc that change from SAYC to 2/1. To ensure that I haven’t missed anything, kindly assist me to complete this table. 1. SAYC opens with 13 HCP. 2/1 opens with 12 HCP. 2. SAYC 3-level pre-empt, 5-11 HCP. 2/1 3-level pre-empt, less than 10 HCP (according to Paul Thurston). 3. SAYC 2/1 response promises 10+ HCP but is not game-forcing. 2/1 system: A 2/1 response is game-forcing and the cornerstone of the system. 4. SAYC 1NT response over 1M is not forcing. 2/1 1NT response over 1M is forcing for 1 round. 5. SAYC 2NT response over 1m, 13-15 HCP, game-forcing. 2/1 2NT response over 1m, 11-12 HCP, no 4-card major, invitational. 6. SAYC 2♦ response over 2♣, negative. 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ are natural and game-forcing. 2/1 2♦ response over 2♣, “waiting.” 2♥ response over 2♣, negative. 7. SAYC does not incorporate Inverted Minor Suit Raises. 2/1 does incorporate Inverted Minor Suit Raises.

The familiar symbols on playing cards today (♠ ♥ ♦ ♣) that are now used were first devised in the 15th century. After the French Revolution, a 1793 decree forbade the use of feudal symbols on cards. As a result, the symbols and figures (Jack, Queen and King) were replaced by others. For instance, the Jacks were changed into symbols of equality: social rank for Spades, equality of duty for Hearts, colour of the skin for Diamonds and equality of rights for Clubs. The Queens were discarded in favour of the symbols of the four freedoms (work, religion, marriage and the press). The Kings were replaced with the themes of war, peace, trade and the arts. Still in France, many more designs drawn from revolutionary and republican themes called upon an equally large number of famous political and public figures to illustrate playing cards. It was at the end of the 19th century that cards recovered their classic symbols. The names of the court cards Nowadays, the names of the Jacks, Queens and Kings are no longer printed on playing cards. Here they are as a reminder: ................Spades..........Hearts..........Diamonds........Clubs Jacks.......Ogier...............Lahire...........Hector..............Lancelot Queens.....Pallas.............Judith or........Rachel.............Argine ......................................Athena Kings........David..............Charlemagme..Caesar............Alexander I have absolutely no idea who most of these people are or what their connection to the different suits is. Can anybody help?