Jinksy

After 1S 1N 2C, would 2H normally show 4+ or 5+?

Suppose you're playing a version of Gazz, with a (semi)forcing 2/1. It goes 1S 1N 2C back to you. Is there a clearly best system to deal with the following distributions when too weak for a 2D response? 1444, 1435,1453, 1345,1354, 1255 (if it makes a difference, 1S 1N 2N would have been a strong balanced hand. No room for it to be otherwise in our system)

It's not a raise, it's showing preference. With say 2236 or 2326 and an uninspiring C suit it seems like a reasonable bid - or with 2435 if 2H is not natural. Does everyone think it should obviously *be* natural here, btw? It doesn't promise an abject min, but she can certainly make more encouraging sounds over 2D. The absence of them lowers my expectation of her hand.

Hand 1 was against the winning team, incidentally who beat us by about 7 VPs after a moderate win against us in that set, so probably cost us the cup. *sighs*

I was S on both hands. On 1 I agree with everyone in retrospect. My thought wasn't of making 6♦, but concern that W was bidding like someone with a ♣/♦ void, and N's bidding was consistent with long ♣s, a couple of soft ♥ values and not much else - in which case 5♠ looks to be making. But on LoTT I think it's clear that that's very anti%. On 2, I don't agree with the reasoning people have given that 'having decided to bid 2♦, I have to see through the GF.' Why? Aren't we allowed to update our views based on new data? My reasoning on the pass was that a) with as much as xx in ♠s, P would be fairly likely to have given preference, unless she had very good ♣s, b) with very good ♣s and anything at all on the side she would have decided that her hand was too good for a 3C limp, c) opposite the singleton ♠ I therefore expected to find her with, my aceless suit looked pretty worthless in any contract, and if she had a really good C suit as a source of tricks the H suit was likely to be seriously weak, so 3N looked unlikely and 5C when I have about 2 playing tricks to offer partner looks ludicrous. If you do think N should have made a stronger move with the hand she actually had, then all this reasoning looks valid.

It was S who bid 6C on board 1, not N. Re 2H on board 2, I think that would be fifth suit forcing, more likely to be seeking a stop than showing one (and prob showing a good hand for his limit).

Playing weak and 4, fairly natural/standard methods, teams scoring. Opps are competent though not outstanding club players. Teams, IMP scoring. Hand 1: EW vul x KQ86 xxx AQ842 x xxx AKQJ7x K7x N deals and the bidding proceeds: 1C P 1D 4S P P 5D 5S P P 6C X (5S was off about 3) Hand 2: EW vul, N deals T AJ65 Q6 KQJT9x KQ9743 K AT85 43 The bidding, uninterrupted, goes 1C 1S 2C 2D 3C P ATB on both?

I've been discussing with my regular P in particular whether it would help out with Fantunes sequences to have non-GF 2/1. It certainly seems like it would solve a lot of problems with the huge range in responder's hand. Neither of us can see whether it will cause even bigger problems elsewhere.

Where are the evangelists when I need 'em? :P

I've seen a lot of assertions that it's better, but very little reasoning to show it. I recently read Bridge in the Enigma Club by Peter Winkler, which recommends non-forcing 2/1s; he's a cryptographer rather than a world class player, but I didn't find his arguments any less persuasive than those I've heard for the reverse. I assume it's agreed that when playing 2/1 you gain vs the alt whenever you make a 2/1 bid (except on marginal hands where you have to force to game without knowing enough about P's hand to know if your values are working), and lose whenever you bid 1N (or canape as a result of insufficient strength). Most hands presumably fit into the latter category, so presumably the argument is that the gain is sufficient to outweigh this. But it only seems to help significantly on slam-seeking hands, which are a pretty small minority. Sure, you might bid games more accurately on occasion, but that seems rare, and is offset partially by the fact that since the defence plays a greater role in games than slam, you're also helping them when your bidding is more detailed. I'm not against 2/1 as a GF per se - I don't really have a view. But I'd really like to hear some decent arguments either way.

1H 1N 2C 2D 3H 4D 2C is Gazz, immediately asking about strength 2D is showing a upper range for the 1N bid - not sure if this is GF in regular Gazz? In our Fantunes system it's GF over anything except a 2H rebid. 3H shows a GF hand with a decent 6+Hs So what is 4D? Responder hasn't had a chance to bid a suit yet, but doing so for the first time at the 4 level seems pretty risky - but otherwise how can he find out if his broken honour holdings are supported by p? If it is natural, how does opener a) keep the auction alive setting Ds as trumps, and b) keep the auction alive setting Hs as trumps? Does it make any difference to the 4D meaning if 2D was a GF? Ditto if you're playing 1H as unlimited? The actual hands: 653 - KJ9854 K65 and AQ AKT87642 A A3 In our system 1 level bids are unlimited, 14+, and 1N is 0-8, so 2D can't be GF - it shows about 5-8. Perhaps responder should upgrade to a GF (9+), but I don't much like it with such a moth-eaten minor and a void in P's suit. Playing intermediate jump shifts would help a lot, and I have a fair bit of time for them in this system, since Bergen raises seem less valuable opposite a strong hand.

Free: Ok, that seems fine to me as long as there's no hidden reason why bidding Gazzilli on that type of hand doesn't work. Even if I didn't need 2D as natural for Fantunes, I'm wouldn't touch Flannery with a bargepole. But what's your rebid over the 2D positive? With a 15 or bad 16 count in regular 2/1 or a 17-bad 18 in Fantunes, don't you still have to rebid 2H? Or is the idea that having done so (not passed the semiforcing bid) you've effectively made your invite and given the known absence of a 4-4 spade fit you can retire? BunnyGo: That works if you play KI 1S denying as many as 4S, but in the standard version it can have up to 4, so now the 1N bid has to show 4S so that you don't miss your 4-4 part. I think it's still NF, but now it's less likely to be the right part and you won't be able to bid it as often anyway The problem I have with 1S as three or fewer Ss (maybe there are other issues) is that I think responder will have 4 more often than not, conditional on him not having 3 Hs for you, so you'll actually get to play in 1N less often when it's the right part - and now you don't have the wherewithal to find 5-3 S fits/avoid 4-3 ones, which I think was the idea of KIs in the first place.

This question is with the Fantunes style bids in mind, but seems like an issue in regular 2/1 as well. Assuming you're not playing Kaplan Inversions, and you have a 45xx distribution with just too little for a reverse/other strong bid. What do you do with the hand after 1H P 1N? Going via Gazzilli doesn't seem crazy, except that most descriptions of it seem to imply that it doesn't contain this sort of hand. I was investigating Kaplan inversions, but I'm not too thrilled with them in their own right, since it seems like a fair loss at IMPs and a big one at MPs not to be able to have the sequence 1H P 1S P 1N PPP... Does Gazz just not work without them, or am I missing something?

J98 was dummy, sorry.

I asked, but the answer was basically 'undiscussed'. The better minor bid was taken to be semi forced.

I wasn't sure how to play this suit. Naturally my line was not the winning one: J98 opposite Kxxx in a NT contract with enough entries to play it however you like. What's the best line to make two tricks in the suit? Does it change things if you can't afford to lose two tricks both to LHO in the process?

Two decisions that worked out poorly for me in a match last night (teams of 6, IMPed): 1) [hv=pc=n&s=sqjh76542dkqj74c2]133|100|Favourable, dealer S.[/hv] You play 3 weak 2s (with the formal agreement that they need only contain 5 cards in this position) What's your call? 2) Which if any of the calls by S do you disagree with on the hand below? You formally play light openings in this position (as weak as about 7 if the suit is headed by AK and looks like a lead you want), and 14-16 NT. [hv=pc=n&s=skq5h54d64cakj954&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1nd(either%20minors%20or%20majors)p2d(better%20minor)p2h(both%20majors%2C%205-4%20or%20better%2C%20not%20specifying%20better%20major)p2s(preference)ppp]133|200[/hv]

P opens an intermediate 2C, say, showing 5C and a distributional hand (5+C, with only 5 he will also have a singleton). The question is how best to have 2H by responder. We have a fairly elaborate feature ask system that would allow opener to show max/min, then over either for responder to show exactly a 5cM/poor 6 (at the three level by now), GFing. Given that, the question is whether 2H is worth being nominally invitational, or nominally to play. In favour of inv: If it's not inv and responder wants to invite anyway, he won't be able to rest in a H part unless opener shows up with 4H. Knowing about responder's 5cM before judging whether he's max/min will help him evaluate his hand better. Against inv: Opps don't tend to rescue you from dodgy part scores. If P has a weak 2 esque hand with shortage in your suit, often his suit will be a making part when you won't. P in any case will pass with real weakness and mediocre suit, since he won't want to advertise it to the opps. So even if 2H is nominally to play, opener can afford to raise (showing max on the way if he has it) with good support. After inv when opener has a negative and shortage in H but nothing much extra in C, it's tough for him to know whether to pass or rebid his suit (did partner upgrade based on a good C fit or downgrade based on a poor one?). When P's nominally not showing particular interest in game, you know he's bidding 2H because he means it, so you can safely pass without an extreme discrepancy between what you have and what he expects you to have in the two suits.

Disclosure - I was S and passed on whereagles reasoning. If 5S asks for 2 of the top three honours, it's a no brainer. My view after the fact was that, with no specific system available, N should bid 6H - sure, p might put down QJxxx in S and a Q somewhere, but over 5H (or any bid that might be taken as seeking 'extras') seems likely to sign off with hands like KQxxx or KJxxxx and out.

Here's the key question at the heart of the system I posted in full elsewhere. If you're playing Fantunes style forcing 1 level openings, how do you deal with 5-5 suits in the 2-level opening range? My current scheme (which MickyB has been savaging) is to open the *lower* of the two suits when your hand is top of the 9-13ish range (ie can give a positive response to a feature ask), since that's basically the only way you can describe these hands in a humane constructive auction without bypassing 3N. With the lower end of the range you open the cheaper suit, partly because your negative response to feature ask will take up too much space for you to be able to show these anyway, partly because with a points range close to or below the mean it's more likely to be the opps' hand so you want to preempt more aggressively. MickyB's view is that bidding the cheaper suit is crazy in almost all cases - a) because whether or not it's 'their hand', if they get involved (as is reasonably likely on a distributional hand which expects to find the points distributed quite evenly) and you've failed to show a five hard holding in a boss suit, it's going to end poorly for you, and b) because even if they stay quiet, p might pass holding weak hands with a good fit where 4M turns out to be cold. MickyB's feels like the commonsense view, but he hasn't convinced me yet that it's clearly better.

You mean they did better than their total average on hands where they opened 2CDHS?

Clarified the bidding in the OP. Re MickyB, not explicitly agreed.

Clarified the sequence above.

xxxx - AKxx AKQJx opposite AKQ9x xxx QJx xx N deals and bids 1C (Acol, showing 4+), and the bidding proceeds with no passing 1H (ocall) 1S 4H 4S all pass.

I've been discussing with MickyB (a much more experienced system designer), and his main problems with the system are opening the cheaper of two 5 card suits ever, and having a negative point showing response to primary feature ask. I have two alternatives in mind, but three key priorities that I don't seem like I'll be able to satisfy: 1) reliably getting the shape of 2-suiters across in constructive auctions, 2) preventing the system from getting any more complicated, and 3) preempting effectively (ie opening the top suit). One seems to have to give. His recommendation is, I think screw 1), always open the higher. The system above basically abandons 3. One alternative I’m sympathetic towards is a compromise where I open the higher of touching suits (iff I'me planning to give a positive response to feature assuming a points-negative remains part of the system - otherwise always open the top), and redefine the 2N opening to show something complementary in the same range that seems suitable for it - Hs and a minor perhaps, Ss and a minor (though I'm not keen on going to the 3 level unnecessarily with the master suit). There's also a question basically unrelated to the rest of the system, about how to deal with interference. My initial inclination is to go for something like this. Takeout doubles up to 3S (conservative by modern standards, but then over a regular preempt most people would be playing then as pens here, so I could be talked into lower or higher) After 2a X, ignore the X in bidding, or XX with points and no fit. After 2C 2D, P is forcing. After 2a 2b second in, P is forcing up to (inc?) 2S. After 2a 2b, jumps shifts are fit showing, 2N is probably Leb, which seems a bit silly, but not sure what else I'd want it to be.