hoolie

SH wrote: "I suppose there will be some votes for an early 2H rebid rather than a 3C rebid, but I find that idea without merit." -------------------------------- I realized later that some people were thinking the 3C was a "high reverse" showing 18-19 points and game forcing. I think that is part of Acol, but it is not part of Standard American. I think in S.A. it shows a min of 14+ points and depends upon suit quality. #1 x KQJTx Jx AKTxx 1H P 1S 2D 3C Thus I think 3C is the correct/usual rebid in SA with 5 losing tricks. And the hand under discussion has the same number of losing tricks, 5, and a good suit. 6 J987632 - AKJ96 I have not come across the notion of "high reverses" in SA, I think it is an Acol bid. But if someone has an online reference that high reverses are a part of SA, then I will look at it. An argument that it "ought" to be is another topic. For instance in some styles of 2/1 the "reverse" of bidding a 4 card major at the two level after opening a minor just means you don't have a 12 point minimum, not really a bid which shows a "good" hand. I suppose these discussions don't default to Sayc?

Hannie wrote: "Agree with Harald and Frances, it rerally depends on the specific hand. To say that you should always ignore the 5-card suit is just wrong. SH: That is what I thought in the moment, the 5-card suit needed emphasis. I was reading a book by Max Hardy, "Advanced Bidding in the 21st Century" vol 2. and his quote of an ACBL "The Bulletin" article about what hand is considered strong enough in playing strength, although very weak in HCP, to qualify as a "legal" 2C opener, "a reasonable chance for game in hand with little help from partner". Hardy presented one such hand: AKQT98 JT9876 4 - The hand above reminded me of the hand I held, the basis of my question: 6 J987632 - AKJ96 So I bid clubs because of the quality of the suit, lead direction, and it is hard to get partner to raise your minor even in 6-5 situations with 4 card support. I understand your point about dinks so I will include the auction which my reason for thinking if partner held Txx of clubs and a singleton heart, then maybe clubs would work for the final contract. 1H P 1S 2D 3C 3D Dbl. Redbl. 4C P 4H P P Dbl 4S I am the heart opener. My early 3C bid has been criticized as showing too many values. I thought the hand should be bid like 6-5 because the hearts are relatively weak in comparison to the clubs. Incidentally, this hand qualifies as an opener using Marty Bergen's "Rule of Twenty" which was endorsed by Jerry Helms with the caveat of having two quick tricks; this hand has 21, combinded suit lenght=12, and HCP=9. This hand can often make game facing a broken partner who has *just Ax of hearts and a doubleton club or Tx*. Clubs can split 3-3 or either the club Q or T in opps hand can be doubleton in a 4-2 split, over 2/3 chance I think. I don't remember my partner's hand exactly, he did hold the A4 of hearts, a doubleton club, and the KQ of spades and the K98x of diamonds for his 3D double. So this mitigates against concerns of being dinked. As you can see, we reached the correct contract and would have scored well since we were doubled, but partner pulled 4H*! I began to wish we were playing 3D doubled and redoubled, both vul I think. 4H makes because although LHO has 3 hearts, 3-1 split, his partner has Tx of clubs which drops and after playing the A of hearts, the ruffing finesse succeeds because the doubler has Qxxx of clubs. If the hearts had been 2-2 that line of play would still work, but fails if clubs are 3-3, I hope this is a case of the rule of restricted choice, the T of clubs showing up then, the chances of Q-T-x exactly versus various combinations of Tx doubleton. To conclude, I think bidding 3C at my second opportunity is the most descriptive bid I can make. I am less sure of my 4C call over the redouble, there I have been wondering that if I bid 3H then, maybe partner wouldn't have pulled the 4H double later. OTOH, I think the 3H bid would tend to show 6-4 distribution, and as it was when he preferred hearts to clubs with a doubleton in each suit my 6-5 style of bidding has still gotten the message of a six card heart suit across. So how many like 3H rather than 4C? I suppose there will be some votes for an early 2H rebid rather than a 3C rebid, but I find that idea without merit. :D When I learned to play the story was bid your longest suit first and subsequent rebids of your second suit show at best the same number of cards in the first suit or fewer cards. My bidding always showed more hearts, 6-5 or maybe 6-6. Thanks for providing such thoughtful replies, Stephen

When you have 7 of a major and 5 of a minor, how do you bid it? To bid 6-5, one bids the longer major first and then rebids the minor until the picture is clear to partner. I have a reference for this bidding sequence. But, I can't seem to find anything authoritative online, so would prefer a quote from a book or online rather than an opinion, since I've heard lots of differing opinions already. Thanks

This is an incredibly strange example to give. 6NT or 6♠ is just about cold, and yet no one gets to slam because 14+17=31, and this is an example of how "showing points" is best? Am I missing something? This hand has extra shape, conditional values, a stiff Queen in a primary suit, five cards in the other major, and Ace-and-Space holding, and an AQ holding. I've seen few hands that are more oriented to cuebidding, and yet you blasted to 3NT, killing any ability to find any secondary fits or to cuebid or to do much of anything. How nice would a 2♥ response be if Opener did any of the following: 1. Raise hearts directly or conventionally 2. Jump rebid spades to set trumps (if possible missing the Queen) 3. Rebid 3♦ QUOTE (hoolie @ Aug 29 2007, 02:54 AM) Partner recently opened 1S and I held Q Axxxx KQxx AQx I bid 3NT which showed 15-17 and a small doubleton spade. I counted the SQ has a doubleton. Not worth 18 because of no spots. My partner passed who held 14 HCP and a seven card spade suit headed by AKJ. (Kings of hearts and clubs) Other pairs bid 2H over 1S and then opener rebid 2S. So they jumped to 3NT which was passed out. I think the point showing bid is the best way to give partner enough information to bid a slam, not the suit bid and later rebid NT. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Rexford wrote: This is an incredibly strange example to give. 6NT or 6♠ is just about cold, and yet no one gets to slam because 14+17=31, and this is an example of how "showing points" is best? Am I missing something? SH: Yes, I was making the point that they didn't get to slam with 31 HCP and a 7 card suit facing a doubleton, not a singleton or void. This is how I want to compare the hands: #1 AKJxxxx Kx xx Kx Hand under current discussion: #2 xx Kx AQJT9xx Ax ------------------------------ I think both these hands would drive towards a slam if their partner opened 1NT or at least both hands should. With the actual hands given, hand #2 is cold for 6D and a finesse for 7D. While hand #1 is only 52% for the small slam. But change this actual holding Q Axxxx KQxx [Give this hand a point less, the A of D instead of KQ of D] AQx and hand #1 is cold for 6S and has a better chance for 7, than hand #2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This hand has extra shape, conditional values, a stiff Queen in a primary suit, five cards in the other major, and Ace-and-Space holding, and an AQ holding. I've seen few hands that are more oriented to cuebidding, and yet you blasted to 3NT, killing any ability to find any secondary fits or to cuebid or to do much of anything. SH: The stiff SQ may have little value. Some but not much facing AJ9xx but a lot facing AKJxxx. How do I show my points? I can't jump shift or fake a reverse. If I bid 2H like at the other table and hear a rebid of 2S, now a jump to 3NT shows 15-17 but points concentrated in hearts, AQJ, I don't have that. Nor if partner raises me to 3H do I have a continuation to show 17 points. Partner may have raised me on QTx of hearts. I can't push for a heart slam because my heart suit is so poor. How nice would a 2♥ response be if Opener did any of the following: 1. Raise hearts directly or conventionally 2. Jump rebid spades to set trumps (if possible missing the Queen) 3. Rebid 3♦ 1. I don't see that working unless partner can bid hearts himself as you have suggested for the 3D rebid. I think trusting that partner has KQx for his three card heart raise is too chancey. 4H doesn't look that much better to me than 3NT if partner doesn't have 4 hearts to bid over 3NT. 2. That would be nice but most partnerships need AKQJxx not even AKQTxx. So my SQ inhibits that bidding alternative. Another thing is you mention that 3NT consumes bidding space. How about on the hands where partner opens !NT with Sxx instead of SQ? Doesn't responder using S.A. bid a strong 3S or more modernly, bid a strong 3H transfer to 3S? Using about the same amount of room. I suppose there are some slam gadgets over a softer 2H transfer. But the spade bidder has 2 kings to protect so the advantage of a transfer seems rather slight to me. Why can't cuebids start over 3NT? 3. I don't see why he can't rebid another suit as it is... When there are two big hands, the partner with the points should bid them and limit his hand. The partner with the undisclosed long suit should be the Captain. My 3NT bid was not a signoff or a unilateral handhog bid, it described my hand well. You haven't mentioned what I think is the most grevious mistake!! Why did partner pass 3NT with 7spades facing an announced small doubleton. When is it ever right especially at imps to play in 3NT rather than at 4S in your 9 card fit? As for cuebidding, there are good hands for it and other hands best explored using RKC. On hand #1 (spades) he doesn't have any outside aces to cuebid. So I think the spade hand should correct to 4S over 3NT and on the way check for aces. I think 5S is quite safe. Partner could safely discover if I have 3 aces, so I would need another King or working queen for my NT jump. In this case he would unexpectedly find 2 aces and the trump Q. I hand #1 the use of RKC is even clearer to find 6D. With the particular hands in question the captain with the long suit can decide to cuebid if spades have been implied or bid a another suit over 3NT if not, or ask for aces. I don't think it should be any harder getting to slam with 7 card suits having either the long diamond hand, 15 HCP + 14HCP or the long spade hand with 14 HCP + 17 HCP. Usually people only add 1 extra point for the 5th, 6th and 7th cards in a suit; but those extra cards often translate into entire tricks. #2 xx {x} Kx AQJT9x {x} Ax change the extra diamond to an extra spade which improves the spade fit with AKJ87x ATx xxx K and it is clear the time to rebid spades is when the 2D responder only has five diamonds. And there are two different styles, the spade rebid promises 6 or the spade rebid shows a minimum and may have 5 <ML> Iirc, diamond and spades slams pay the same imps. Also for the record, I have read 5 books on 2/1 but three were by the same author.

I disagree, this one got funnier when Ron didn't get it ;) Well you may have thought is was funny because English isn't your first language. It could actually have been construed as rather insulting to the poster. I disagree, this one got funnier when Ron didn't get it :) "Well you may have thought is was funny because English isn't your first language. It could actually have been construed as rather insulting to the poster." SH: To get this topic back on track, I didn't think that the reading comprehension skills to tell this thread was about 2/1 rather than Sayc was any big deal. "I think you've got this all wrong. It is more likely that you will be able to support diamonds after you bid 2S then that you will be able to bid spades after you bid 3D. Whether 3D shows extras or not has nothing to do with that. " SH: There is a balance about informing partner about points or length so though extras don't matter too much in this spade/diamond, which is easier to rebid remark, extras matter. If the opener rebids spades, in one version of 2/1 this may mean you show extras by bidding your second suit at the three level, say clubs, so you can't. When do you get to show the 15 points after partner bids, say 2NT and the 3D rebid by opener is now indicated? Responder on this hand is so strong it may not matter, slam is ice cold, but it could matter. Partner recently opened 1S and I held Q Axxxx KQxx AQx I bid 3NT which showed 15-17 and a small doubleton spade. I counted the SQ has a doubleton. Not worth 18 because of no spots. My partner passed who held 14 HCP and a seven card spade suit headed by AKJ. (Kings of hearts anc clubs) Other pairs bid 2H over 1S and then opener rebid 2S. So they jumped to 3NT which was passed out. I think the point showing bid is the best way to give partner enough information to bid a slam, not the suit bid and later rebid NT.

Winstonm: "2N is for those whose 3D is non-forcing in this auction." 3D would not be forcing playing Lawrence style: 1S - 2D - 2S -3D The 3D rebid by opener rather than 2S does not rate as positive as "extra values" like I thought: Lawrence "(1) When opener raises responder's minor suit, he does promise a little more than a minimum. It is not the same as when opener raises responder's major." Thus 1S - 2D -2S - 2NT, looks better since it is game forcing with Lawrence style, and the hand has no singleon. It shows a tolerance for spades but not as good as Qx. Then I think opener can show a preference to diamonds rather than rebid his spade suit for the 3rd time. Since the trump suit has been fixed at the 3 level, then responder can explore slam using RKC for minors.

kenberg: "I think many of you are complicating a rather simple hand." That is true but not in the way you think. Several of the comments did not seem to be that familiar with 2/1. The 2/1 2D bid is forcing to game and shows a good suit. It is a principle of 2/1 to establish the trump suit early on since you are not in danger of being passed. Thus the 3D raise 1S P 2D P 3D is dictated by the 2/1 system in all 5 of the books I've read as fixing the trump suit and showing extra values, 15+ HCP. The question of whether spades is a superior trump suit does not arise. The value of this 3D systemic treatment is to improve slam bidding and is pretty basic. Because of that good 7 card suit, responder's hand is worth 17+ points and can almost bid 6D strait away because opener shows extra values. So responder can initiate RKC blackwood and discover one missing key card, so no GS, but 6NT is very likely to make with opener having 2 K's and 2 aces or 3 Kings and one ace and a queen. If the spade suit is funky, say K-J, then 6D or 6NT has the same problem facing xx. The 6NT idea comes from Kaplan's book on RKC which is not at all basic. So I agree with keylime who presented the usual expert exposition and which is still part of the basic level of system bids in this case and can be found in the Lawrence 2/1 Workbook and Hardy's 21st Century, vol 1/2.

[quoteI like a 3S bid, why not 1D P 1H P 2S? it is only a point light and a level lower than 3S. SH: When you look at the requirements for a 2C bid for a two-suiter (although some prefer to bid the suits) the HCP is not as much as a concern or varies according to the # of playing tricks. This hand is worth 17 or 18 and although responder had Qx AKxxx Tx xxxx, a maximum, responder could have a King less, Qx Axxxx Tx xxxx. And the game of 5D, which seems less discussed than dinking 4S, is over 65% when the spade finesse is parlayed with the drop of the DQ if there is no entry to take the second finesse, even when 4-1

For those of you who like a 3S bid, why not 1D P 1H P 2S? it is only a point light and a level lower than 3S.

I will just comment on hand which is in a quandary between passing the takeout double of 1S or maybe bidding 4 hearts. If they are playing 5 card majors it seems they will get 5 trump tricks and the ace of diamonds if their side has it which is only 200, but if you get a bad heart split and partner has his promised 4 hearts, you should make 4 hearts, though it could be close if spades are 5-1-1-6, they have the diamond ace and there is a trump promotion on the second round of spades. Well, I think 4H is too quick and maybe partner has one of those hand which he doubles and then bids in his own suit with only 2/3 hearts. There are some hcp missing from this auction so far, either opener has a good hand or your partner has extra values. So bid two hearts which actually promises very little and then await developments. If you bid 4 hearts and partner has a big hand you will likely get to high and lose some serious imps. If you get passed out at 2 hearts (unlikely) and make 3 that is 140 vs 200 and you take the safer but not sorrier 2 imp loss. But imagne what happens if partner bids 3 of your minor void over 2 hearts, what is your rebid? It is better to be cautious on these type hands.

Hello, In the Intro to Mike Lawrence's workbook on 2/1, Hardy writes that the thinks Lawrence's approach is ok except for limit major raises, where he thinks his own (Hardy) treatment is better. Any views from those familiar with the specific difference on this topic and also which is the better overall approach? I read somewhere that this was a matter of East Coast vs. West Coast, but that basis doesn't seem very objective to me. Regards, Stephen

:) Rigal's book I feel is the "next step up". I liked how Barry wrote it with some substance in terms of a "global" approach with conventions, system, and such. However I agree with Richard; the relays part of it is very substandard and poor. From there, I think it would benefit you to view Blue Team Club's methods and other five card major methods. The sky's the limit, and you'd have the foundation to understand the complexities and digest them. I feel exposure to styles and such, can only be fully experienced, once the fundamentals and infrastructure is understood and realized. SH: Thanks for the advice, I'm having the same problem with pages falling out with Hardy's 2/1 book. Maybe I can graduate from Berkowitz to a book with a better treatment of relays. I've looked at the notes for Garozzo's system for World Itatlian Jr. team, Sontag/Bates and Meckwell and I agree that a foundation is required. I will need to find somebody to practice with on BBO, perhaps the player profiles will help. I thought the Antipodean Club to be quite creative, and the idea to read the Bermuda Bowl book seems very good.

Berkowitz/Manleys book is an easy read and is based on a sensible Precision style, but it is certainly not "convoluted". Alan Sontag's book "Power Precision" covers some more advanced methods. Jannersten and Viking may be options as well, but I don't know those books. Antipodean Club is the state of the art as I understand it, but I haven't read the book about it. SH: I have the most votes for Berkowitz book but will pick up the Reese or Rigal or Wei book if I ever find it used. By convoluted I meant artificial in the sense that Hardy says using Inverted Trump Swiss is recommended. That seems just as artificial as the big club though not the simpler splinter bids. ITS comes with a lot of memorized responses Underjumps etc. If you're going to learn a new system from scratch and you're open to anything, you might consider Moscito. You can also try to look in the "book reviews" thread in General Bridge Discussion". I admit I have no idea how to search a single long thread for specific keywords, but a query like +precision +rigal on the "general bridge discussion" (select any post age, view results as posts), gives some hits. I used to play 2/1 but switched to Precision in my IRL partnership half a year ago after having played Precision with some semi-regular partners on BBO for a couple of years. I would still have to study it a lot more and to discuss a lot of things with my p in order to benefit from the advantages of Precision. I think 2/1 has the advantage that most style and judgement discussions, such as the "interesting bridge hands" on this forum and Master Solvers' Club in The Bridge World, assume 2/1 or something similar. SH: I guess they use the simpler 2/1 style. "Antipodean Club" got no hits on google, thanks for the tip on doing searches. Thanks everyone for your interesting responses. I couldn't figure out how to reply so I posted this as a new topic with the same subject. Regards, Stephen

Hi, I used to be a good and avid player, but dropped out for 35 years. I came back to find many people playing 2/1. So I started reading Hardy's book which gets rather involved, and Lawrence has a different version. I decided that if I was to learn something rather convoluted, if might as well be some big Club system. I'm leaning toward the Berkowitz book? Any of you play the Viking precision club originated by Alan Sontag? Did most of you play 2/1 and then switch over? Regards, Stephen :P