EricK

Consider the case of Cohen and Bergen. I really have only heard about their exploits in tales, but as I understand it they introduced (or at least made use of) a lot of these so-called "randomizing" pre-empts and they consistently did very well! Now if this is true then "random" is being used in an unusual sense when it comes to describing bidding methods.

What exactly do you mean by "random" in this context?

I don't like a fit jump on this hand. It seems to be just begging partner to make the wrong high-level decision because it has too many flaws:- there aren't enough trumps, the ♦ suit is not perfect for a fit jump (suits headed by an Ace are good opposite length and shortness) and you have a very defensive holding in ♣.

Wow, I just saw all this. Ken, before resorting to "super science", let;s see how far inituitive bidding can get the B/I's? Until you know natural bidding well, super science can be very dangerous to the user... 1♥-1♠;?? 1n => no problem, we rebid 4H and we are done. 2m => 4SF followed by 4H's shows this hand fairly well. 2h => 4H. 2s => Yum. A 2x fit with at least one of them 9 cards +and+ we still have undisclosed extra's. Frankly, I'm not seeing the problem with a 1S response that requires heroic measures to solve. The problem with some of these sequences (i.e. showing the hand as a spade suit plus heart support) is that this is not the really the best description of the hand. For one thing the spade suit is lousy, for another the hand is essentially balanced, and for a third (although this partially follows from the first two) much of the strength is in the minor suits. If partner has a singleton it is most likely to be in ♠. This is not altogether bad news, but partner is not going to realise this if we deliberately mention our spade suit. The question of what to teach B/I's about bidding is an interesting one. It is not at all obvious that teaching them methods which don't allow for any judgement is the best approach. For if you do that, how are they ever going to learn judgement? Bidding 2♣ is not "super science", nor would be bidding an old-fashioned 2NT (balanced GF), nor would be bidding a new-fangled 2NT support bid. I would much rather a beginner was aware of what "natural" bidding is trying to achieve (tell each other the important information about our hands until one partner can take captaincy) than them simply being given a list of how to bid each hand type.

Are there standard meanings for these jumps to game? eg in terms of length, overall strength, strength in the suit, strength outside, fit for partner etc. what are the differences between them? 1. 1♦ 4♠ 2. 1♦ 1♠ 1NT 4♠ 3. 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 4♠ 4. 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 4♠ 5. 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 4♠ 6. other similar sequences I may have omitted Also, are there any difference if the opener's first suit was ♥?

The first 4 bids in the auction appear totally normal to me. At this stage, 4♠ looks correct with the south hand. Slam is possible but it needs partner to have very little in ♣ and lots outside - too much to expect IMO. I suppose 3♦ was meant as FSF, but whatever it is 3♥ in reply can't be too bad - you do have about as good a ♥ suit as partner can expect, about as little in ♠ as he could fear, not enough in ♦ to suggest NT, and too short a ♣ suit to bid them for a third time.

That makes more sense. Thanks!

In a thread in the B/I forum you said this: Which does seem to suggest that 2/1 being GF does have an affect on whether you open a balanced 11 point hand with 1m.

Lot's of reasons: 1= pd can't X as confidently or as often if they can't trust your openings to have "starch" to them. 2= pd can get over excited and put Us in a hopeless spot. 3= 5m needs more tricks. Therefore hand that are highly likely to not end up in 4M need to be sounder in case we can't play 3N. 4= When We don't pllay the hand, any bidding We have done helps Declarer play the hand more DD. None of these reasons seem to have to do with 2/1 being GF though.

I have heard it repeated that if you play 2/1 GF then it is not a good idea to play light openers. Now this makes sense if the opening bid is 1M - partner's 1NT becomes too wide ranging. But why does it still make sense if the opening bid is 1m so that 2/1 is no longer GF?

Playing SAYC according to "the book", the 2♥ response promises a rebid; which means that 3♥ is forcing; which means that 3♥ must be GF. Since the 2♥ response wasn't itself GF, that means that 3♥ must show some extras (but not that many). If you don't think you have enough for an immediate raise to 3♥ you have to temporise with 2♠ and then bid 3♥ on the next round.

Actually, I think you misunderstand Reese's point. One of the points he is making is that only using the SJS when you have an absolute powerhouse with a near solid suit of your own is not getting the best out of the bid. So Reese would definitely disagree with the people who say that this hand isn't right for a SJS. Another point that a SJS does not in the end waste space is also true. Your XYZ auction with a jump to 3♥ is exactly comparable in terms of space used to the SJS of 2♥ followed by 3♥. But you are wrong if you think you find out something useful about partner's hand. Often you find out something which is useless or worse than useless because partner doesn't know you have a strong hand. Compare 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ where 1♠ may be xxxx with 1♣ 2♥ 2♠ where you know that partner has a genuine ♠ values. Or compare 1♣ 1♥ 1NT wherer partner may have Kxx or KQ in ♥ with 1♣ 2♥ 2NT where you know that partner does not have any sort of support for your suit. And this ties in with his third point that not making a SJS forces you to make a load of artificial forcing bids which don't tell your partner anything about your hand except that it is strong. So after eg the XYZ sequence 1♦ 1♥ 1NT 2♦ (GF) what do you bid with, say, KQx Kx QJxx QJxx? Is he looking for a club fit? For this level of Heart support? For confirmation that the unbid suits are well stopped for NT? Co-operative bidding on this sort of hand is much more than one person simply making forcing bids and the other trying to divine what it is their partner needs to know.

"Fair" can be used in two different ways. Consider a variation of football where before the game there is the toss of a coin and the winner of that coin toss gets a one goal advantage. Is that fair? Well by your argument it is fair because over time each team will have the one goal advantage as often as they have the one goal deficit. But clearly (at least it is clear to me) it makes any individual game unfair. So is it fair (in the second meaning) that not only do spades outbid diamonds, but they outscore them too?

I will quote from Terrence Reese (this particular quote comes from "Bridge for Ambitious Players", published 1988 but I am sure I could find similar quotes from him): "The old-fashioned forcing response, such as two hearts over one diamond, has become - well, it has become old-fashioned. In America, particularly, a jump response tends to show either a very rare giant or, for some players, a long suit in a weak hand. It may be right not to force when you have no fit, but when you have a good suit of your own, or strong support for partner, it must be sensible to make a jump response. As Culbertson pointed out more than 50 years ago, you don't save time by making a minimum response, because you have to jump later; or bid around the cllock, giving no picture of what you hold." What can be gathered from this thread is that this opinion is, if anything, even less popular these days. And more to the point, that "bidding around the clock, giving no picture of what you hold" (i.e. FSF, NMF, fake reverses and so on) is not considered to be a bad thing. I, on the other hand, agree with Reese. The fact that forcing immediately is best on this type of hand is constantly reinforced by the sheer number of hands posted here or on rec.games.bridge where somebody asks how to bid a pair of hands and the obvious solution is to start with a SJS. On the other hand one never sees hands posted where a SJS to the 2 level was made and they got to the wrong contract as a result.

A husband invites three friends round to play bridge. Throughout the evening he keeps pestering his wife: "Honey, could you bring us some drinks?"; "Some sandwiches would be nice, Dear"; "Have we any cake?" etc, etc. After his friends have gone home he find his wife in the kitchen doing the washing up. "You look busy, Dear." he says "Can I give you a hand?". "That would be great" she says. "OK. You've got 5 spades to the Ace, KQJ and another heart and 4 small clubs..."

If you are going to bid something else before supporting spades then 2♣ is better than 2♥ for a number of reasons: 1. Lying about the length of a minor is less likely to get you into trouble than lying about the length of a major 2. 2♣ still gives partner room to bid 2♥ so there is no immediate rush to mention your ♥ (this is in fact a good reason not to support ♠ immediately - 4♥ may well be a better contract than 4♠) 3. If you bid 2♣ and have a double fit with partner in ♣/♠ he is likely to let you play in ♠. If you bid 2♥ and have a double fit in ♠/♥ partner might take your subsequent ♠ bids to be cue bids rather than suggestions of a contract.

Due no doubt to the system you are playing, you have contrived so far to bid two suits on a totally balanced hand; and furthermore, the suits you have bid have been your weakest two. I really think it is time to tell partner that you have a balanced hand with stops in the unbid suits.

My father tells a story of when he was playing duplicate bridge back in his university days (so that is 50 or so years ago!). He had just sat down at a new table and accidentally kicked one of his opponents. He turned to him and said "I'm so sorry. I thought you were my partner"

If I bid 2♥ on this auction then I am showing 6 of them (or at least if I only have 5 it is because I don't mind you acting as if I have 6). If an average club player bids 2♥ then they could very well have 5.

Any use for margarine other than as a foodstuff is to be heartily welcomed.

5NT puts us on the horns of a dilemma: It is either a GSF or pick-a-slam but neither really makes any sense! I haven't limited my hand (well I have a little bit but I could be much stronger than the 10 points I hold, or on the other hand I could have a hand with worse playing strength) so how can partner be saying "we should be playing in a small slam - no higher, no lower - you decide which one"? On the other hand, if partner wanted to make GSF in ♣ why didn't he agree ♣ first? I believe the first reason is more plausible. If you haven't discussed 4SF in much detail, maybe he doesn't know if 4♣ would be forcing. So I think that GSF is more likely meaning for pard's bid.

If you are playing a system where the 2♦ rebid does not deny 4♠ but does show 6♦ and a minimum hand, then you might miss a ♠ fit but you are unlikley to miss a ♠ game. The method would lose on some hands (where you end up in the wrong part score) and gain on others (where you avoid getting too high or end up in a safer part score), so it is not obviously a bad method. On the other hand, if the 2♦ bid is non-systemic and partner will refuse to believe you have a ♠ suit then there is a greater potential for loss. I disagree strongly with this. Why might you get too high just because you rebid 1S. If pd does raise to 3S why are you necessarily too high? You have a shapely hand and decent 4 card support. In fact a 4S bid is certainly not unreasonable. Seriously Eric, if you follow this logic, then you should play very sound opening bids and pass this hand. If you have a ♠ fit you are probably better off bidding 1♠. If you don't then you might very well be better off rebidding 2♦ (eg partner will rebid his ♥ on a minimum hand with 6 ♥ if you bid 1♠, but he will likley pass 2♦ on a similar hand.) The logic behind the position for which I am playing devil's advocate is this: There is a bonus for bidding game. This means that players will sometimes have to stretch and/or keep the bidding open if there is still a chance of game. This in turn risks the partnership getting too high on a subset of hands. Hence there is a potential benefit in telling partner that you are minimum for your bidding to date so that he needn't stretch. This applies whether your openings are light, sound or very sound as they only concern whether you are minimum compared with what you have already shown.

If you are playing a system where the 2♦ rebid does not deny 4♠ but does show 6♦ and a minimum hand, then you might miss a ♠ fit but you are unlikley to miss a ♠ game. The method would lose on some hands (where you end up in the wrong part score) and gain on others (where you avoid getting too high or end up in a safer part score), so it is not obviously a bad method. On the other hand, if the 2♦ bid is non-systemic and partner will refuse to believe you have a ♠ suit then there is a greater potential for loss.

A more interesting, but unfortunately far less defined, question is how many useful bidding sequences are there. Whatever meanings you assign to various bids that will automatically make certain future actions impossible. I guess that most bidding systems have roughly the same number of useful sequences (for some value of "roughly"!)

The issue I am highlighting doesn't really apply if responder is balanced. I am more concerned with an unbalanced responding hand where, depending on the distribution of high cards on opener's hand, there might be a load of wasted values or, conversely, you might be "playing with a 30 point deck". Imagine a distributional 15/16 point opener opposite a balanced 7/8 point hand with a major fit. Here the bidding might go 1M-2M-game try-accept/decline. Now transfer 8 points from the strong hand to the weak hand and the problem I highlighted arises. It seems silly that what are essentially the same hands are easy to bid in one of the scenarios and difficult in the other. Maybe the problem is that a 1NT opening takes up too much room to allow for accurate bidding.