bglover

I was trying to construct a simple example of 2/1 auctions and illustrate how the principle of fast vs. slow arrival works. If you read my 1st post I did mention Serious 3nt as a way to explore for slam... BUT in the example I constructed I did not intend for that convention to be used... Rather, it was an example of basic 2/1 bidding and how to show a "good" hand by responder vs. an average hand. I suggest it be read in that light. And, given that, you will find it both accurate and informative as to how to show a better hand by resoinder... yes, there are other methods once you understand the basic prinicples involved.

OK, we are starting to zoom in on the problem here.. you do not fully grasp slow and fast arrival auctions. The faster responder bids to game, the LESS he has in slam interest.. This can be taken to mean his hand is relatively flat and/or is not rich in controls. Thus, the slow approach infers parther has more to show you along the way... For example: 1h-2d (GF)-2h-3h means PARTNER, I HAVE UNDISCLOSED ASSETS. It also implies that responder has more than 13 or 14 points for his original bid. Let's assume opener simply rebids 4hts... that is not sign off.. but it does imply that he doesnt hold the Ace of clubs (he would cue bid it) and he may have the ace of diamonds (since we are in a game force and diamonds have been bid, no need to cue bid this card with a tame hand). Responder does NOT have to pass and SHOULD NOT if he holds the ace of clubs and additional cards of interest... Partner may still have the ace of spades and a minimal hand. His bid of 4 hts was only showing minimal values and probably relatively square shape (5332 or 5422). Knowing this information, responder needs to reevaluate his holdings. Does he have enough 1st and/or 2d round controls to make slam opposite a relatively shapelss hand? Perhaps a few controls but long, strong diamonds (most 30 point slams are double fits with the 2d suit providing sufficient discards). Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that responder holds the ace of clubs and decent long diamonds, but not the ace of spades (which can still be in opener's hand don't forget). He now bids 5c. If opener is holding the spade ace he can move on to 6... if not he rebids 5 hts knowing they are off 2 top tricks in spades (unless of course responder has that suit covered, in which case the bidding may not end). There are other ways to ask about 2 quick losers in competitive auctions as well. If the auction goes 1s- (2c) -3c (cue bid by responder)-p-5s (opener), opener is saying I have 2 quick losers in clubs but I can cover everything else opposite your limit raise. Bid 6 if you dont have 2 quick losers in that suit too. This has gone on a tad long so I'll stop here... hope that it helps.

Well, remember the sequence I gave you promised a minimum on responder's hand to start..and also no shortness as responder would splinter (mini-splinters are a very important part of 2/1 and are underused in my estimation) rather than bid game directly. Ergo, the opener has a lot of information before making his cue bid. In other words, opener has to use GOOD judgment before making a cue bid in this type of auction. He should not be imagining a "magic" fit that could envision slam in partner's known 13 point, no singleton, hand. Most 16 point openings that do not contain a singleton or void should NOT be moving towards slam. Conversely, an 18 point hand with xxx in one suit must be very cautious as well... the probability of 2 losers in that suit is high even opposite an opening hand if that is an unbid suit. I know agressive players who automatically cue bid with all 17 plus hands in this situation and I do not agree. You've had the chance to garner information from partner, and if you can see a flaw based on the bidding, why risk the 5 level (this actually happened to me yesterday on a hand that was cold for 4 but had no chance at 5). So, my answer to you is to use judgment and not be too reliant solely on point count. Slams are usually more distribution-oriented than HCP oriented (and if you have those kinds of rocks you know it pretty fast..).

It is the lack of an outside entry that made me create that particular example. Experience has taught me not to immediately bid 3nt on a 6 card suit without a possible 2nd entry to my hand (I used to automatically bid 3nt with the given hand on the assumption it would produce 6 trix most of the time). But, experience (read: too many bad boards) broke me of this habit after a while. I would be much more inclined to bid 3nt with a hand like this: Qxx 9x 10x AJ10xxx on the theory that even if clubs don't break the queen of spades is an additional entry (1/2 the time at least) once the suit has been set up. I realize my way be a tad idiosyncratic, but I was just getting too many bad results in 3n jumping to game on AQjxxx and nothing else. (I admit, I don't track hands, I just know my own tendencies, and I will do something again and again until I feel the results prove my thoughts wrong. A good example of this has been my experience with staymaning 4333 or 3433 hands. The books say bid 3NT with 10 points and forego the 4 card major. I did this for a while and found the results weren't as good most of the time when an 8 card major fit existed. Now, I stayman these hands whenever I have an honorless suit in my holdings and bid 3nt whenever I have at least 1 working card in each suit... I have found this to work out better than always bidding 3nt)

Well, my treatment is only one... I was trying to give the original poster one accepted method for handling the described hands, but did not mean for it be the ONLY treatment (altho it is a common one). The advantage is that when you play in diamonds it's almost always in a decent fit. Partner should strive not to pass 2C almost always without 5 cards in that suit. If he has five diamonds he should return to the major I opened with 2 card support. With 6 diamonds bid that suit... the worst being a possible 6-1 fit. I realize there are many different 2/1 structures, and I am not advocating this one over any others... it is just the one I am most comfortable with as it usually avoids 2 level disasters, but then it isn't perfect, nor did I claim it was. It's Mike Lawrence's treatment and I've used it for many years now so I am comfortable with it. If you like another treatment, that's fine, but I am sure it has its own set of flaws for 2 level sign offs (the basic weakness in any 2/1 system).

Some play (myself included) that after a 1M-1nt response by partner you rebid 2c whenever you lack a second 4 card suit..So if your distribution is 5332 you rebid 2C because 2D promises 4 or more diamonds and you aren't allowed to rebid your 5 card major here. The reasoning is that if partner's suit is diamonds he will now have the chance to bid it and it will probably be your best fit. If partner has a good hand with clubs he is now required to have 5 pieces to make a club raise to protect a possible 5-2 fit. In the situation where partner responds 2D or 2C over 1M, I always raise partner with 3 pieces if I do not have a six card major and do not have the other suits stopped (always rebid 2nt if you can). It is the least offensive of your other choices (avoid bidding a new 4 card suit, unless you are 5-4 in spades and hearts, in which case you must show the hearts now). Partner now knows that we lack a stopper for NT and can either raise my major, show the a stopper, or rebid 3nt. As to the situation where you have extra values but cannot reverse, the simple solution to that is to cue bid above game after you have found a fit. So, if the bidding goes 1s-2c-2d-4s you now would bid your cheapest ace... you have agreed on spades as your suit so a bid at the 5 level shows more than a minimum and interest in slam opposite partner's known minimum. Also, you may want to look at Serious 3nt for auctions that involve either limit or bergen type raises that keep the bidding at the 3 level and have a game force (see BBO notes).

Actually this brings up an intersting point. If I hold something like: 109x 9xx x AQJxxx and my partner opens 1nt, I am more likely to pass and come in later with my club suit than to immediately transfer to clubs. I don't know, maybe I have played too many MP games in my life, but I have found that this hand usually plays better as a NT hand than a suit hand. If the opponents do come into the bidding, I am not embarassed to bid 3c opposite at least 2 clubs and 15 points (and a quite possible King of clubs in partner's hand). On the other hand, change my ace to the 10 and I transfer every time. I have no source of trix without clubs as trumps and when I do a minor-suit transfer its because I have garbage. Maybe everyone wont treat this hand the same way, but I have bid this hand this way for as long as I've played transfers, and I do this ONLY for the minor suits (change the clubs into spades and I texas the hand, expecting partner has a good chance to make 4). This certainly was the type of hand, or suit, anyway, that I expected in my partner's hand when this occurred.

I think perhaps you are missing my point... My hand's defensive values improved markedly by partner's unsolicited bid when we are about to be passed out in a part score (remember he took his bid in the passout seat). That bid should be meant to show some values and meant as a push... If he is pushing, then it is with the expectation that i SHOULD double 3hts in this situation... that he has working cards for me. You and Dwayne have tried to put this into a purely mathematical discussion-- doubling opponents into game results in high scores when it fails. ergo it is improper to do so mathematically. My point is and has been, it partner takes an action, it is for a purpose. If, as here, someone decides to take his 1st call at the 3 level (after already annoucning he has fewer than 8 points), there must be a great reason for it. Since that reason can't be to compete for the part score (this is imps, not matchpoints), then the only logical conclusion is he is pushing them to the 3 level EXPECTING me to double given the right hand. Well, I had the right hand... I got a tad unlucky in the spade suit but gosh, how much better should my hand be to double here based on this reasoning? If you NEVER double partscores you are doing something very wrong. On the other hand, if your partner is doing his job in assisting you (as here, where I reasonably assumed he pushed them for a purpose and didn't just make a plain stupid bid to hear his own voice), then you can double frequently with a good expectation of positive imps.

actually, it would be nice if there was a direct link on the site.. I do click on it from news since its the easiest way to get there, but then I know it's buried there, too. maybe the next version would provide direct links to the Forum and MyHands? just a thought.

OK, one final word here... Declarer got incredibly lucky when his partners only working cards turned out to be KJ of spds in front of the AQ10 killing the defense. My partner had 5 HCP-- QJ of clubs and the Q of dimonds... Did I not have the expectation that the bidder would be holding the spade cards as well for his frenetic bidding given that his hearts could only account for 7 HCPs? And, since I have 4 decent hearts, he SHOULD have some points somewhere. NOW, add into this that my partner now elects to make a club bid...AH more grist for this mill.. He doesnt have club winners... In other words...that 3C bid gave me USEFUL information for doubling (sure I didn't X 2H but now 3 looks like a balls-on favorite to go down!) Based on everything that I heard and could deduce (and that 3C bid was a HUGE part of my reasoning) double not only looks good, it looks INSANE not to... So, ya I fully expected to find the K of spds in bidder's hand and thus expected 2 spd trix. OK, that didn't work out... I NEVER expected the AK of clubs to be there... and if partner had kept his mouth shut (or, better had xfered to clubs like he should have then shut up showing weakness), I NEVER would have doubled. I think you and Dwayne are being very narrow minded.

Well. don't forget my original post had to do with being booted for making a double that wasn't going to hold. And my point was only that it was a reasonable double, and certainly I didn't deserve to be booted just because the double didn't work out. Now, as to my partner's actual hand... He did, in fact, have a heart void, the QJ of clubs 6 times and nothing....NOTHING else. Sure, a good player immediately bids 2S (xfer) and is done with the hand... even half expecting that 3C may make given the shape and the expectation that partner has an honor or 2 in clubs. Not this guy... So, when he bids 3C at this stage I did expect (1) a smattering of HCPs in clubs that might be useful on defense (remember I held xx) and (2) a hand that, if with no defense, is going to pull to 4C if I choose to double (for, why else would he bid if he didn't expect another action from me?) I would expect a partner to find me with a heart stack (I had one) and make that bid as a push (he did) and then lo and behold there's that double he was hoping I'd make given that he pushed... Just because he passed 1nt doesn't mean he is totally broke, right? In other words, Fred, I 100% disagree with you here.. He KNEW I had a stack.. he PUSHED them a level... to me, the whole purpose of his bid was so that I could then WHACK 3H and I did.

This post is directed to Sally: The plain fact is that for some, it is not enjoyable to play with someone who is considerably less skilled. That does not diminish you (or anyone else) as a human being in the least. Rather, it goes directly to MY OWN enjoyment of the game. I strive to enjoy playing... That enjoyment entails (1) playing with people whose company I enjoy and (2) playing with people who give me a good, competitive game. There are many good players on this site that I will no longer play with solely because I don't enjoy their company at the table (and I am sure a few feel the same way about me). So, the fact that I don't care to play with intermediate players is not a reflection of them as people whatsover... it is a purely selfish aspect that I share with a lot of other bridge players. There are a few intermediates who are friends and I rarely play a game or two with them... But I also go to the training rooms with them and try to help them improve. Again, this is for selfish reasons: I like them and because I do I want to see them improve so that I can play with them more down the road. My point is, my not wanting to play with intermediates or beginners is not a reflection on them personally, and I think many, many good players would echo the exact sentiments I've written here... I think you will discover my atittiude about this is quite mainstream.

And yes, Julie is making the same point I was.. It is easier (as host) to send a polite message saying "Perhaps this table is a bit too advanced for you" (my usual polite message) than to have to have 3 people leave to accomodate the one. I realize you do not agree and I also realize that the BBO rules do not agree, but what I am saying is perhaps the rules are inappropriate, not the people like Julie and myself who are trying to follow them but are then forced to leave their own table. If I sat down with Garozzo and after a few hands he asked me to leave I would not be insulted in the least. I don't play as good as he and his partners. Likewise, if I sat at a table full of novices and they felt I was not appropriate to their game and they asked me to leave would I be insulted. The worse insult, to me, is the player who has either (1) been seated accidentally due to the vagaries of the current version of the software (Uday, where are my tiles???? Private joke) or (2) someone either misrepresenting or not actually knowing their own skill level forcing 3 others to be inconvenienced. I do not want to get into a discussion of what is and is not an insult... each person has their own levels of discomfort and that's what this is becoming. What I am trying to say is, I guess, is that I disagree that the current set of rules forces 3 people to be inconvenienced instead of one. Even Inquiry has to admit that is what the current set of rules creates. I can respectfully disagree with that rule and still follow it as I do currently, and I can also hope that the rule is changed.

Well I do admit that is the one thing that will get to me.. not granting undos on obvious mistakes... that's why it is in my profile.. It makes for a very contentious game and I simply do not want to play in that type of atmosphere. I do often have to start a new table (probably have to two to three times a week) after asking someone politely to leave (and i always do so privately and nicely... I make a point of this I am not trying to insult anyone). Often, due to the vagaries of the software (discussed elsewhere on this board) I accidently buzz someone in who I do not know and now I must play with that person although I intended to allow someone else to sit (I always require permissions at my table). I generally try to play with people I am familiar with so that I don't get into this very situation, but sometimes people do get in accidently and sometimes I need a fourth and an unknown person requests to sit,,, their profile appears appropriate and I do allow them. If, after a few hands, it is apparent they are not what they advertise, it becomes a problem because their partner is now going to leave rather than continue... So, in essence 3 people get penalized... I try to stay within the rules (I realize it is a privilige to play here) and I do not abuse them... I have never booted someone for bad play and I immediately blacklist someone who doesn't grant undos so that I don't ever play with them again... matter of fact that is about the only way for someone to make my blacklist. I realize BBO says players don't have to grant undos... but I also do not have to play with people that don't (or worse, grant them when they won't be damaged but not grant them when they clearly will get a huge imp result due to a mismouse). This is the reason why my profile says what it says.. if you do not grant reasonable requests for undos then you are probably trying to get a good score through devious means and I just don't need to play with you..and you don't want to play with me...everyone is happier this way.

I have now put into my profile not to sit at my table if you do not grant undos since we all make mismouse mistakes and the like. I will boot a player (after giving them a chance to correct an ungranted undo for an obvious mistake) but that is the only reason I will boot someone. If someone is so desparate to get imps that they will prey on an obvious mistake, I do not want to play with that person, plain and simple. (I have a recent story i can relate about this very thing... A kibbitzer saw me do this very thing and accused me openly of cheating! Since BBO doesn't have ratings based on IMP totals, how was this cheating? Well, I won't go on beyond this tidbit). On the other hand, I frequently ask players to leave the table (nicely) when it is apparent their skill level is not as advertised on their profile and they are out of place at my table. Many times, after several polite requests they won't leave, and so I am forced to leave my own table where I have 2 other good players because the 4th player refuses to vacate. I don't really like this. Why should 3 players be penalized because one won't cooperate? But, it happens on a quite regular basis.. Since I am not supposed to boot a player for this kind of reason I don't... but I really would like to be within the rules and those rules should include that a host may request a player to leave and. if that request is refused, then be able to boot someone without fear of repercussions. I recently was booted in the middle of a hand for making a quite good double that was not going to hold up... Here was my hand: AQ10 K987 AKxx xx I opened 1nt, my p passed my rho overcalled 2h, passed back to my p who eventually bid 3c and righty bid 3h.. I of course now doubled and dummy hit with no useful cards EXCEPT the KJ of spds and opener had a diamond void... Now, my double was perfectly reasonable but this hand was making an overtrick. Once it was obvious declarer was making, my partner, the host, booted me. THAT is not a bootable offense.. This was not a silly double..It just didn't work out (sometimes they don't). Had my partner asked me to leave after the hand, I would have... Even tho, in my estimation, I hadn't done anything egregious... but booting me in the middle of a hand?

Sure.. the easiest example is with the partner who leads top from 3 (i really really hate this by the way but he insists). What does his 2d lead tell me if we are playing present count after the 1st lead? Well, I can usually deduce that it was top of 3 but not always... Whereas if he leads low from 3 (like the rest of the world) and then top of remaining 2 I never have any confusion. Let me clarify something tho.. It is really the combination of non standard leads (three partners with three sets of preferences) with UDCA that is causing the problem. If I could get all 3 to agree to the same lead conventions (I cannot, I have tried), then I have no problem with UDCA and present count. By insisting on standard leads (I don't care if it's 3/5 leads or 4th best long as I have been informed beforehand) and standard carding I never get lost... I don't have to remember who likes what how.. It is for MY clarification that I want this.. the mass of confusion of who likes what lead from what sequence is just maddening for me.

I gave it up as a practical matter.. I have three different partners that insist on UDCA and they each have a different lead method. Since I could not get them to standaridize leads (one leads 3/5, with top of 2, one leads bottom of 2 and one leads top of 3) I often times wasn't getting a count until the 3d lead of a suit, which is just plain silly in my estimation, and makes defense near impossible. Altho I will play them if someone absolutely insists, given my druthers, standard count is much easier (for me anyway) no matter what set of leads I am using. This problem simply goes away.. whatever small advantages some people claim for UDCA are outweighed by this one HUGE one, and I don't find the tradeoff acceptable.

This is just for a laff, easy, but honestly, it was these issues that led me to drop UDCA from my carding options. I could never figure out what the count was even in a suit after partner won a trick and then made a return. Since I am very count-oriented on defense I found it really difficult to make good decisions... too many unclear leads gave me the wrong hand count. I know many love UDCA and I am sure it has its advantages, but instead of confusing the oppostion i found it was consusing me!

That brings up one important point that I meant to mention earlier. The 2c bid does not work well with true 2 suiters. I have stopped opening strong 6-5 or 5-5 hands 2c even if they meet the 8 1/2 trick requirement because they are just too hard to bid losing the extra level. The only time I will open such a hand 2c is if i already have game in hand and am prepared to rebid 4 of a major over partner's 2h response.

Actually Ron, I don't think I know one pair that doesn't have a way of stopping short of game after a 2c opening these days. So, therefore, you and I are on completely different wavelengths here. With refinements in bidding has come the understanding that not all 2c (or acol strong 2 hands) will always produce games and methods have existed a long time now to allow partnerships to stop in game. If you play 2c always forcing to game except after a 2n rebid, this discussion actually has no relevance to you and that is fine, but then I hope you never open a strong 2 without game completely in hand... that's a rarity but thats ok those hands do exist. I have actually reached slam on hands where responder has started with a 2h bid... as i said opener jumps to absolutely force game... you do lose a level for investigating... thats the tradeoff. So, on the example hand you gave, the bidding could go 2c-2h-3s-4c by the 2h bidder (partner i have a passel of clubs contained in my garbage and no spds since if I had even 2 I'd bid 4 spds instead).

I will try to address both replies best i can... First off. 2h is not a sign off bid... the bidding can still be forced by opener with a jump (3s or 4 of minor) but it does mean you lose a level. However, when opener has bid 2c on a hand that already has game in it he will still have the chance to bid it. On the other hand, how many 10 trick, 2 or 3 suited hands have you ever held (the example easy gave) where you dont have a stopper to try 3n? It's rare but can happen I grant you. Now, how many 2c hands have you held that could never make 4 of a major opposite a complete bust? Many more than 9 or 10 trick hands that you could gamble 3n on opposite a complete bust... that's the logic to the bid. The 2c bid does not guarantee game in any case... it assumes a modicum of help from partner and alerts partner to the possibility of slam opposite a moderate hand... it is not the old days of bridge where a strong 2 bid was 100% forcing to game. The 3 of a minor second negative has been around for a long time now in deference to the understanding that 8.5 trick opening doesn't always produce game. If you accept that the second negative bid of 3 minor allows partnerships to stop short of game (and that is almost universally accepted these days) than the 2h bid simply saves a level... instead of 3 of a major -1 you can play 2 of a major making for a good score. Like any other convention it does have its drawbacks... and it certainly requires the bust hand responder use EXCELLENT judgment once opener reveals his suit whether or not game is still in the cards... But, and I stress this...saving a level with a bust hand often times results in clear tops and rarely, if ever results in a poor score. If a poor score does result. it's because someone misjudged the quality of his assets (because remember, the 2h bid does not say im passing your next bid, just that I responder have very little help).

Well thats anti- system.. you are forced to bid again without a prior agrement that there is a drop dead bid available..that's the whole reason for the 2 heart supernegative bid in the 1st place. If you whimsically pass everytime you have a bad hand then partner isn't going to like it very much when he is holding a 10 tricker and is exploring which of his 2 suits is better to play in. Since you can just pass whenver you deem your hand is bad enough partner will never know what to do... your method I do not like a bit... at least the 2h bid warns partner my next bid may well be pass so if he wants to bid game he better do it himself quickly.

Well Dwayne. occasionally I have played 2hearts with my horror and the good hand exposed... but invariably it has been the best spot for the contract as partner knows not to expect one trick from me.... It's a small trade off given that other methods are going to force us to the 3 level....

I have played 2h as a supernegative for about 10 years now with my regular partners and it has served us extremely well. The other day I was playing on BBO with an occasional partner and we had another good result with it, although one of the opponents (also an occasional partner) did not like the bid of 2h supernegative. At our table the bidding went 2c-2h-2s ppp. I had 2 spades, 2443 shape and 2 jacks and we made exactly 8 as advertised (most of the field was in 3 going down, where partner opened 1s and let opps into the bidding, and he had to show his good hand by rebidding 3). Anyway, I was recounting this hand to a so-called expert and he told me that the 2h bidder was always forced to take another call to protect partner in case he held a 2 suiter. To me this seemed foolish, as the whole purpose to the 2h bid is to prepare partner for the possibility of an early bailout. (Now, to clarify my own methods, I will give a positive response on almost anything more than a working king, so when I bid 2 hearts I have a really really bad hand). The so-called expert gave me his reasons (and they weren't terrible reasons at all but didn't persuade me) then said that 1000% (sic) of all experts would agree with him so I did a survey (on the net and amongst good players I know) and found that 50% of all experts agreed with him and 50% agree with me (which is actually about what i expected). Obviously there is not nearly 100% agreement on this subject, but I would like to hear from people that use the 2h bid and how they treat it and why.

I think most-- certainly many-- people play NT as either 15-17 or 16-18. If a partnership is playing some other range it should be clearly stated BEFORE THE FIRST HAND has been dealt and the opponents given a chance to discuss their defenses to weak no trumps. Many people play DONT over strong NTs and Cappeletti over weaks because the Capp double is for penalty and they want to preserve that option against weak no trump bidders (the penalty double can be a strong tool there). It would be silly (to me anyway) to have opponents announce their NT range if it WAS the normal 15-17 but I WANT a pre alert if they play weak.