bglover

Bridge is a game that's full of numbers and counting, but, thank goodness, one doesn't have to be a mathematical genius to be successful at it (I am certainly not math whiz). In my experience, where a lot of players get hung up is on the 26 for a major/28 for a minor game. These are merely GUIDELINES for reaching a probably-successful contract. But, as guidelines they fall a tad short. Why? Because they forget to mention that there are other factors besides points and an 9 card fit needed to bid game or slam. As an extreme example, let's say you pick up this hand: x AKJ10xxxxxx Kx Void Thats 11 measly high card points.... yet it will take a minimum of 10 tricks 99% of the time (only time it won't is when partner and one defender is void in hearts. Indeed, some people would open this measly 11 count 2 clubs and they would not be far wrong to do so. This hand is an extreme example of my favorite principle in bridge (and one that a lot of experienced players never fully learn): Long suits take tricks. This may seem terribly obvious on its face, but the problem lies in that many players do not account for that extra length during the bidding process. Lets take another example, using 2 different hands. In both instances partner opens 1NT and it's your bid: HAND 1 Kxx Qjxx Qxxx Qx HAND 2 Qxx xxx AQxxxx x On hand 1 most would bid 2C stayman then rebid 3n if partner either shows spades or no 4 card major, and that's fine. 3N may or may not make on hand 1 as all of responder's points are "fitting cards"-- they fill in gaps for declarer's suits. All of declarers aces kings and jacks will improve because these fitting cards will assist declarer's cards in setting up tricks. But notice that only the King of spades is likely to be a trick on its own. Yes, a heart trick is likely as well, eventually, but the suit may have to be led 2 times before that can occur. In other words, hand 1 is full of slow tricks. Slow tricks need to be developed by leading the suit more than once. Hand 2 is a completely different animal. In 3NT, this hand is likely to take 6 tricks on its own if opener has the king of diamonds. Even if he doesn't, but holds Jxx, the likelihood of 5 diamond tricks is extremely high. Many players I know (not just beginners) would merely make an invitational 2NT bid with Hand 2 (a few would make a diamond transfer if they were playing 4 way transfers, but let's not go there for now). In theory this may not seem so bad-- the hand only contains 8 high card points and we all learned to invite with 8 and bid 3N with 10. But, a 2N invitation here is WRONG. This hand's trick POTENTIAL is much higher than the hand with 10 high card points. That 1st hand has a trick potential of maybe 3 (it has other good points to it tho). Now, I capitalized "potential" for a reason. It is entirely possible that hand 2 will take exactly 1 trick-- the D Ace. Given that partner has opened 1NT this is not likely.... but it could happen (and has happened to everyone who plays bridge). If we are unlucky enough to find partner with 2 measly diamonds (i.e., no diamond honor) for his NT opening we are going to be sorely disappointed. And our hand's value is going to drop like a lead weight. Nonetheless, given the hand's wealth of potential tricks, that should not stop responder from bidding 3N over 1. Note that, given the right cards for his 1NT bid, even 6 diamonds would be possible (but I wouldn't suggest looking for a slam here). Note that, despite the headline, I have talked very little about "real" integer type numbers. Successful contracts require long suits with some fitting honors OR lots of high card points between the 2 hands (the more HCPs you have, the less you need long suits, and visa versa). Take 2 hands which each have good long suits (Akxxxx or better) and a modicum more in high card strength and you can easily bid slam on a lot less than 33 points (this does require some extra distributional values, such as a void in one of the hands). Don't fall in love with high card points when you bid. Remember that the longer a suit is (assuming its either good enough on its own or that partner is known to have some support), the less in HCPs you need to make games. Remember that hand with 10 cards in it.... Not that 10 baggers occur very often, but it illustrates this point nicely...

Two points: 1st, I agree that passing is wrong as partner can have up to 18 here and this particular hand doesnt even need that much to have a good chance at 3nt. But, secondly, with a GOOD 9 points and 3 spade honors theres not a thing wrong with a raise to 2s with this hand... I would not hesitate to bid it here and you will find the good 4spade game. This hand is very close to a 3spade raise as a matter of fact. There is not law that says you must play an 8 card fit in game. With wonderful fitting honors, a ruffing value AND an ace this hand's value improved markedly when partner bid spades. Remove the queen of spades and replace it with the deuce and then maybe pass is ok here... this hand is way too good to give up.

Nope... just semi forcing after opener limits his hand with a rebid of suit. This is a drawback to natural bidding no doubt, but I've been playing it so long (did I mention, I'm OLD?) that I've come to accept these limitations and not let them bother me much. Once someone limits their hand (either thru a NT bid of some sort or a suit rebid) there is no such thing as a "forcing bid" in SAYC that isn't a reverse or a jump of some sort. That's why so many of these little gadgets were invented... to clarify this situation... and there are also a lot of gadgets invented to prevent responder from having to rebid a 5 card suit (support x and NMF being 2 examples). It's not very natural after all is it? But I'm used to it so I deal with all these bits of junk. And, let me tell ya something else, SAYC without those little gadgets can be a nightmare... trust me.

My only response to that is "it's a jump shift... 100% forcing to game." If you play with me as your pick up partner then I will not treat it as a splinter but as a game forcing bid with some number of hearts. A jump shift by responder on the 2d bid is showing GAME VALUES only... A 1st round jump shift shows SLAM INTEREST. This is true in SAYC and in 2/1 game force. The very reason I posted that earlier hand on my last missive was to cover this bidding situation. Jsilver said that even not playing NMF or checkback 2H was the incorrect bid. She was right... the correct bid for that hand is, indeed THREE HEARTS when not playing some sort of new forcing bid over 1n rebid, so that partner cannot pass. Now, had this sequence gone 1d-1s-2c, the correct bid with 13 points is 2h (may or may not show 4+ hts but is 100% forcing to game due to 4th suit forcing). Opener with 4 hts should raise, with 3 or less rebid NT if possible. With a 5th heart responder rebids hts at the 3 level. Indeed, you lose nothing by following system here. A splinter is still available (4hts as discussed). You get to show more hand types this way (some people do play that the jump to 3hts promises 5+ hts and partner must choose a major). In the sequence 1d-1s-2d-? there is no forcing bid besides 3c the way you are proposing...now there is a giant hole if responder has 5 spds and 5 hts. Why? because after a 2d rebid by opener he can choose to pass 2h (he has limited his hand to <=15 and 6 diamonds and a 2h response promises only 10ish points). With 2362 shape and no club stopper he may well decide there is a misfit that can't be resolved and choise pass as best option.

Altho this hand does not contain a splinter, it does cover some of the other things we have been talking about in this thread: k10xxx AKxx Axx x Partner opens 1c, you bid 1s, partner bids 1n, what do you bid? At the table I saw this hand, responder bid 2h, partner passed it out with 13 highs and 3433 distribution. Admittedly, playing NMF or checkback covers this situation nicely (instead of a 2h bid responder can bid 2d asking partner if he has either 3s or 4h in his hand). But, even given that, should opener raise 2h to 3 or should he just pass on a minimum?

Another addendum... Watching the USBCs today I noticed Wolff-Morse are playing Flannery as well.

I took this off a bridge site: In order to make a Splinter Bid, the opener jumps one level higher than a jump shift or makes a Jump Reverse, and, of course, the responder does likewise Altho Luis may play that sequence as a splinter I don't think most others do... since a 2h bid would not be a reverse a jump to 3h merely shows game forcing values and 4+ hearts. Had the sequence gone 1d-1h-2d- now 3s sould be a splinter, as 2s would be a reverse so 1 level higher than needed for the forcing bid = splinter for last suit. Maybe this isn't as well defined as I think it to be.. Perhaps others can chip in here.

Regarding The Hog's comment, I don't think that just because 2h is a 1 round force that makes 3 hts a splinter. If 2h had been a reverse 2d bid then 3h would be a splinter... Splinters only occur if responder's 2d bid would create a game force without a jump. Thus, in the sequence given (1d-1s-2d), since 2h can be made on as little as 10 points (and responder can pass at the 3 level opener's next bid), a jump to 3h shows extras and creates a game force. So, any bid that is one above a bid that would create a game force would be a splinter in support of the last bid suit. For example: 1c-1h-2s..game force, says nothing about hts 1c-1h-3s-- splinter in support of hts There cannot be a splinter unless (1) there is already a game force in the auction or (2) the splinter itself creates the game force (as in the example above). Here's a sequence a partner got wrong a few weeks ago: 1c-1s-2h-4d. Partner took it as a dimond suit... It was a splinter in support of hearts. Why? Because 3d would be 4th suit forcing and create a game force in any case so the one-level jump now is a splinter (one level more than needed = splinter).

I would certainly think a 4h bid at this stage would show exactly that... 2h would show a 4 card suit, 3h would be a good hand with good hearts possibly only 4 but with extra values i think). 4h could only be a splinter then... It is certainly not to play and is certainly forcing and I think should clearly be the bid you are seeking after partner rebids his suit.

Good answer... Now, for clarification sake let me say that I PERSONALLY open virtually all 11 point hands when I play SAYC and when I play 2/1 I open only perhaps 5 percent of my 11 point hands (really only the ones that have a good rebiddable suit or some 4-4 major hands where the majority of the points are in those 2 suits). This is the essence of why I also play that a 2M rebid is passable.. I like to open weak hands in SAYC and this style can lead to a disaster at the 3 level playing MPs. That is important to note: SAYC has some distinct advantges at MPs... as someone noted, the ability to play 1NT is often good for a top in a field that is playing 2/1 mainly. The ability to open weaker hands (and thus open more frequently) is another advantage.

Twenty percent? You are dreaming! Five percent maybe! When I play SAYC with a 1st time partner here I always make them spell out what they mean for exactly the reasons you stated. People do not really play SAYC basic or full or whatever and they don't even know it. At least if someone puts Full SAYC on their card they should be playing xfers, neg x, J2nt, etc. yet I have sat with a large number of players who have no idea what a negative double is (for example) while professing full SAYC. It's a catchphrase and it is easy to put on a card.. at least know the system if you are going to say you play it... I read an interesting article on a different site re SAYC and its increasing popularity due to its "acceptance" in online bridge despite its relative limitations. But my (and obviously your) experience has been people basically who play any five card major opening refer to it as SAYC...

As usual Roland you say nothing new and appear to be insulting while you do it. Suggest you read one of my prior posts where I clearly acknowledge that I may not be following the book exactly and that I played this way before the book was even written. And, BTW, feel free to blindly follow the system as written and if you continue to get bad results by forcing to the 3 level on a misfit then, by all means, continue to follow that system. But, I will bet you anything you like that if we did a hand simulation that passing 2M wins out in the long run. Why? Because by the very definition of this discussion game is almost always out of the question (or at least unbiddable) and so therefore being in 2M wins EVERY time 3 goes down and 3 can only win in the rare instance where 2n plays better than 2M (and that is a really rare situation). So, do whatever your system tells you to do... but at least do not insult me. And BTW, you would be very lucky to play with a partner smart enough to recognize a misfit and get out early, even if you cannot.

That is not in dispute Richard... what is in dispute is whether that is really the "best treatment for the sequence 1M 2x 2M" There are at least 3 people in the world that do not play it as forcing (make that more like 10 when I include partners and more like 100 when I include students). As a poster who has REPEATEDLY stated that you do not follow the book but your own judgment, I would like to know your take (not the "book"). I have given my reasons why I do not play it as forcing and frankly still think they are damn good ones... If the best answer anyone has for me is its forced by system, then I say that's fine, but MY system says I can pass with a bad hand if partner can't concoct a more forcing bid than a suit rebid.

I picked up this beauty yesterday: x AKQxxxx j10xxx void Partner opened a spd, rho bid 2c... I elected to x planning on forcing slam if partner bid a red suit... Well, the best laid plans of mice and men... LHO bid 4c (weak) and partner opted for 4s, 5c on my left and I now bid 5H passed out. Here was my partners hand: KQ10XXX J AKXXX x I was, to put it mildly, LIVID. My partner argued that I had a clear 2h bid, my response was that it was an option but that I wanted to get both red suits in ASAP. My partner then answered that my double only promised hearts and then I got MAD because he knows better! 2 things here... Unless we are playing special doubles my 2 level X promises at a minimum 3 dimonds and 4 hts... This may be different if the auction has gone 1c 1s x by me... now I guarantee hearts only the way I play (unless my partner doesn't agree to it, which some don't). Second, my 2 level X doesn't necessarily promise lots of points as I had here... often it is simply suit showing with not enough for a 2/1 response (actually that is the case usually). Could I have bid 2h instead of x? Sure, and I did not argue that point. Should my partner bid 4d instead of 4S in this auction? POSITIVELY...That is why I was livid... It could not cost to bid the dimond suit here... If I know he has enough hand to bid at the 4 level after my x I can always correct to spades and play a 5-2 fit with a decent hand.

Qxxxxx AKx QJ Ax After 1S 2C you are going to get to game, so if you play 2S and 2NT as non-forcing, what are you going to rebid? 3S? 2H? 3C? 3NT? Admittedly, this is a rare hand type to hold, and you might very well get away a non-forcing 2S, a manufactured 2H, an ingenious raise to 3C, a potentially wrong siding jump to 3NT, or indeed a jump to 3S. But I am sure you can see the benefits (on this hand at least) of having a forcing 2S available. Whether one side outweighs the other is a question for debate. It probably depends on just how strong your 2/1 bids are, especially on potentially misfitting hands. If one wants to play SAYC as it is written, one should always try to have an extra point or two for a 2/1 bid if holding a singleton or void in partner's major. For pairs who don't want to make this sort of distinction, there is more reason to have ways to bail out at the two level. I would have no problem rebidding 2S on the above hand,... the suit is an abomination and if partner cannot act over my rebid we probably aren't making game anywhere and if he rebids 2N my hand is now golden. This is a great example of why one must apply judgment in any bidding situation... This 16 point hand may take a MAXIMUM of 3 playing trix if partner has a stiff low spade... don't fall in love with point count... that's the advice I give ALL my students... Long suits take tricks but this spade suit is so moth eaten it has the potential to take none at NT... Why should I force this hand to game? (presumably your answer is because it has 16 hcps and thus must force game...NO).

Point taken and even agreed. I started playing Standard American long before there was a yellow card (I'm OLD) and by the time the YC had been developed I had long incorporated all of the options into my game as well as a few things that were not part of the yellow card. The methodology I described (ie., that rebid of a major by opener is non forcing) was around well before the development of SAYC and I admit I have never played this bid as forcing playing any form of Standard American... It wasn't forcing when I took it up in the early 70s and any change in methodology since then that wasn't a convention addtion I may not be aware of. However, admitting all of this doesn't change the basic logic espoused in my original post and my response to Roland... There is no good apparent reason why responder MUST take a second call on a minimum with a KNOWN misfit. Roland's answers left gaping holes...one should keep in mind a bidder that takes a rebid in a bid suit usually does so because he has a BAD hand and opened it because he had a LONG suit. With a better hand opener has other options... and opt for NT just because I can as responder (i.e., i have no other bid but i have 11 points so I bid NT) is unpersuasive... I LIKE the option of passing knowing that the two level is safe and comfy.

I can construct a myriad of hands where opener holds a minimum with a 6 card major and responder a scattered 11 count in the minors where 3n or 2n is unplayable, so what the heck is your point? My point is and STILL is that being able to play 2 of a major is a GOOD THING the way I have laid it out. Remember, I said most or the time a 2/1 sequence is going to require a 2d bid from responder AND that most of the time you are going tor reach game. I stated ONE SPECIFIC SEQUENCE where it is great to be able to pass partner even after a 2/1 bid and I laid out the reasons why. Nothing in your post addressed how that problem hand is no longer a problem... only that it is likely to force us to a level too high, exactly the reason I propounded for why I do not play it as forcing for another round-- game is NOT in the offing, we have determined there IS a misfit... this is why I play it is PASSABLE even if you do not... and I'll stick to my method knowing it has served me well and is grounded in logic.

I disagree with Erick's statements. I fail to see the logic why a minimum rebid by opener is ever forcing even after a 2/1 response. Use logic for just 1 minute... Opener can have 11-21 HCPs for his opening... His 2d bid allows him to futher refine his holding via a jump, a reverse, etc. Sometimes he has more to show but the bid isn't a natural reverse (example 6 spds and 5 haerts and reverse strength)... this is why a NEW SUIT is forcing after a 2/1 bid even if not a reverse. BUT, when opener rebids his opening suit he has shown his length AND his minimal values (he would jump rebid with more than a minimum). So, the rebid of suit should not be foricng when responder is allowed to make a 2/1 bid on a mere 10 count. Why? Because partner, with 16 or more will either (a) jump in his own suit with extra length or (:) bid a new suit forcing partner to bid again. I have played SAYC this way for years now (we play a new suit is always forcing 1 round, an immediate rebid of suit promises 6 or more, etc.). The context why is laid out above... In my opinion, requiring responder to take a 2d bid when there is a misfit and a lack of HCP strength would weaken the system (getting you a level too high on a known misfit). Now, having said all this, in my experience 90% of the time a 2/1 sequence will end up getting you to game in any event. The pattern I laid out above is relatively rare but useful for part score bidding. That, to me, is actually the one strength to SAYC... the abilty to stop in misfits quickly. Perhaps some play that responder is required to take a 2d bid always, and I certainly play that is the case in all cases EXCEPT when partner rebids his suit and this treatment has served me very well.

In 2/1 this is a slam auction plain and simple. Any bid past 3n after a minor opening (except 5 minor after 3n) says "Partner, I have a fit for your minor and undisclosed assets." In SAYC should be the same thing but I know some who play it as a badly flawed hand that does not want to play NT even opposite known strength (i.e., singleton or void and fear of Nt going down due to it).

Playing SAYC (or BBO Basic), what can you tell about rules of forcing in these simple sequencies: 1S - 2C 2S - ? 1. Can responder pass ? YES. A 2/1 response only requires 10 pts.. 2S shows a minimum hand and presumably 6 trumps... Pass with 10 and 2 spades! 2. Did opener promise 6 spades ? 1S - 2C 2NT - ? Can responder pass ? YES. SAYC requires opener to limit his hand as quickly as possible! 2N limits hand to a bad 15 or less! Rebid 3n with a good 15 or more (but less than 19). 1S - 2C 3C - ? Can responder pass ? Same as 1. Bad 10 count can and should pass. 3C shows max 15 (am assuming NT a problem here). 1S - 2H 3H Is this forcing ? NO. Same as above... but, you probably have enough for game here (as opposed to minor game which requires 1 more trick) so have a good reason to pass.... 1S - 2C 2S - 3C Is this forcing ? NO. MISFIT city... even in 2/1 this isn't forcing in some systems. TIA.

This was discussed in the expert section a while back and you can find the thread there so I won't get long-winded here. Lost in this discussion is a basic fact of life about bridge hands and the Law: The most important thing to look at before you apply the Law when responding to partner is your hand's distribution. The flatter your hand is (4333 or 4432) the less likely your hand is to be helpful to partner. Why? Because your hand is not going to provide any ruffing tricks if you are flat. Do not blindly bid 4 of a major if partner opens 1 just because you have 5 trumps.... you are flirting with disaster if the hand is 5332 and you have a paucity of high cards... The fifth trump isn't really helpful (just guarantees that a trump suit that probably didn't have a loser to start still doesn't). To put it more plainly, don't apply the law based solely on the total number of combined trumps. One needs to understand why the law works before actually applying it and that depends on other factors as well, including distribution, working and non working honors, the potential defensive value the hand has, etc. The more positive shape (singeltons and voids) for partner, the better the hand for offensive competition. The more working "slow" honors (guarded kings and queens) the better for defense.

This situation is quite common and probably requires some agreements. However, I think it should always show some extra values (i.e., more than 12-14 for the 2/1 response). I was doing a mentoring session over the past weekend. One hand had a sequence that went 1h-2c-2d-2s... Both hands held 4 spades but the next bid was 3n. When I asked why bidder didn"t simply bid 3S her response was "We are already in a game force so it cannot be a real suit." Well, it can't hurt to bid 3S here even if it isn't a real suit (unless there is some compelling reason to play NT from this bidder's side). That is a real consideration on this type of auction. If one hand is holding that KJx stopper for NT you want to right side the hand. So, perhaps you will occasionally miss the 4-4 major fit because one hand DOES have that compelling reason. When that situation arises, however, it is usually not a disaster to be playing 3N even when the 4-4 fit exists (and this situation hardly ever arises if you play Flannery, if you have been following that other thread).

Well, Roland's question specifies SAYC so you are NOT in a 100% game force... altho game is in the offing apparently. This is a common problem hand in any natural system. SAYC requires opener to limit his hand on the 2d bid usually. If this hand had a club stopper then NT would be the obvious solution, but that xxx of clubs is a glaring problem. I think, through a process of elmination (and assuming you are playing reverss shows strength) that you must rebid 2H here. If partner rebids 3d you can now bid 3s to show a stopper and if partner bids NT you will be happy to play there. Yes, you risk playing hearts in a 5-2 fit or you may also end up playing D in a 6-2 fit. Altho a 2n rebid is right on shape and points, that lack of a stopper (and with a bad heart suit) seems to eliminate that bid to me.

My experience with precision players at the club level has been pretty disappointing. I have found that most all of them play Goren-Wei precision and that system is ENTIRELY based on point count for opening bids (i.e., you can take virtually all of the hands we have discussed and 1C would not be the recommended bid). Goren-Wei has several other flaws of course, but, in my experience, most of the people (club level still) who took it up were people who couldn't "get" natural bidding. That precision system told them in black and white what to do with every card/HCP holding they had....and took judgment entirely out of their hands. I still see Goren-Wei precision being played here on BBO (and the flaws still stand out). I personally think a strong club system can be an improvement over natural bidding, at least in uncontested auctions. But, a system more advanced than Goren-Wei that substitutes judgment for hard and fast rules for strict point count, obviously. The problem is that some of these advanced systems are very hard to keep straight. I wrote my own strong club system a few years ago (to accomodate my partner, who couldn't "get" standard bidding). I played Goren-Wei with him about five times and decided I couldn't live with its limitations. The sytem I wrote was essentially a simplified version of Beta, but, alas, even that was too complicated for my partner to keep straight. The problem was he is a guy who doesn't have great bidding judgment. He declares well and defends OK, but he needs a structured system to get him to the right spot. And, try as I might, he never did get "judgment." The original poster to this thread had already 'judged" that slam is a virtual impossibility given a limited major suit opening. I have attempted to illustrate that this isn't necessarily so and that it is best to show your size and shape properly. Perhaps all this discussion has served a further purpose however. I think it is fairly clear that not all strong club bidders approach all hands in the same way. This conclusion only intensifies my belief that it is best to show your hand in the most appropriate way.

Just a small addendum....earlier today I watched Msrs. Hamman and Soloway in the Partnership bidding room...It appears they, too, in their partneship use Flannery. Tad more grist for the mill....