Missed slam

[Fluffy]

2/1 has an easy method to arrive to 7♥, you just need to switch the dealer <_<

 

1♦-1♠

2♠-3♥

4♥-4NT

5♦-7♥

 

I supose sayc cannot do this because they never know about the 4-4 in the majors (evil laugh)

[awm]

Jacoby 2NT should be restricted to those hands where the primary feature is good trump support, often with scattered controls or values. "Picture jump" sequences are for hands where the main feature is a side suit that potentially can provide many tricks. Splinters are for hands where the main feature is shortness. On this particular hand, I wouldn't qualify AKxx as a "side suit that can provide many tricks." I don't think this hand is all that different from AJTx AKx xx xxxx in terms of playing strength opposite most hands partner can hold.

 

I'm also not eager to be in 7♥, even though it is probably just over 50% to make. Obviously these are bad odds at IMPs. At matchpoints, enough of the field will probably stop in game (only 25 high after all) that you rate to lose a lot when 7♥ is one off and not gain all that much when it makes.

 

It's good to have some way to limit strength in one or both hands after jacoby, but I don't think jumping to 4♠ to show a minimum is ever right. This is a good time for serious 3NT and the like. If someone needs to show extras, opener has them especially after hearing a heart cue. Also, responder has no wastage opposite opener's short clubs, which is often a good thing. Opener's got to have values somewhere, and not many of them are in spades (responder has AJ) or in hearts (AK) or in clubs (opener's short) so I wouldn't worry much about the weak diamond holding.

[Robert]

Hi Kalvan14

 

I found my 'yellow cover' copy of Max Hardy's, Two Over One Game Force(revised-expanded)updated for the 1990's.

 

Page 97, example B) KJxxx AJx xx K10x

 

"Opener with Example 48 B) has bid one spade and heard a response of two hearts. Invoking the principle of fast arrival opener next jumps to four hearts to show three card support and minimum values for his opening bid."

 

It certainly 'looks' like three card support and there is 'also' is a minor suit "King."

 

My two bidding examples with the Heart King changed into a minor king do appear to be reasonable example hands contary to your claim.

 

Are you confusing 'picture jumps' and the principle of fast arrival?

 

Same page, "When responder bids two hearts after an opening bid of one spade he

promises a five card suit."

 

You did cite Max Hardy for your FA description. In your Post #109668.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Kalvan14]

I am not confusing picture bidding and FA.

I will look up my old copy of 2/1 by Hardy, but I find it a bit surprising what you quote. If FA can be invoked with controls (even 2nd round controls) in the unbid suits, we 're back to kindergarten bridge.

[bearmum]

I should have edited my previous post to read "Ido not believe there is any SANE way to get to 7♥ IF playing SAYC or 2/1 (unless using conventions which are not normally part of those systems) :)

[hrothgar]

I am not confusing picture bidding and FA.

I will look up my old copy of 2/1 by Hardy, but I find it a bit surprising what you quote. If FA can be invoked with controls (even 2nd round controls) in the unbid suits, we 're back to kindergarten bridge.

Funny that... Many people criticize Fast Arrival as kindergarden bridge....

 

For what its worth, my recollection is that traditional fast arrival sequences are used to clarify range and nothing about controls

[civill]

I don't think grand slams are good contracts for this hand, even if there were a way to them.But 6♠ should be arrived.How about this way:

 

[1♠-3NT] OJS(over jump shift for good trump support & good HCPs)

[4♣-4♥]

[5♦-5♥]

[6♠-pass]

Edited December 23, 2005 by civill

[whereagles]

Fast arrival is an quick and enjoyable way to miss slams and bid hopeless slams in 2/1. It has been giving 2/1 a bad name for a few years now.

 

If you skip stuff like serious/frivolous 3NT, picture bids, limiting bids, etc., and leave all to fast arrival, you're going to get into several discussions at the end of long matches.

[Kalvan14]

I might agree, if FA is what appears to be understood by a lot of people on this board (i.e., a min 2/1 - without any clear understanding or limitation in terms of controls, distribution and so on).

The FA I have been playing for the last 15 years or so is something quite different, and focusses on concentration of values, and lack of side controls - either by honors or by shornesses (and, accordingly, it does not happen all that often).

 

Frankly, I do not like the serious NT very much: a proper use of Q-bids (and IMHO the Italian style is still the best, even after so many years) can do very well without the serious 3N. Again, it may be a matter of style, and habits.

[hrothgar]

The FA I have been playing for the last 15 years or so is something quite different, and focusses on concentration of values, and lack of side controls - either by honors or by shornesses (and, accordingly, it does not happen all that often).

This is all fine and dandy...

 

I'll simply make the observation that the expression "Fast Arrival" is already quite well defined. Using this expression in a new and different manner really isn't conducive to effective communication.

 

Get over it.

You are wrong

You have confused "Fast Arrival" and "Picture Jumps"

Learn...

[luke warm]

Frankly, I do not like the serious NT very much: a proper use of Q-bids (and IMHO the Italian style is still the best, even after so many years) can do very well without the serious 3N. Again, it may be a matter of style, and habits.

the thing i like about serious 3nt is the same thing i like about 2 over 1, it immediately clues partner in as to your intentions... also, it costs nothing and has a potentially big payoff

[Free]

FIRSTLY WHY is SEVEN ♥ the optimum contract? -- only 4/4 fit (useless against a 5/0 dist if in SEVEN ♥)

Since nobody cared to respond to the question asked: 7♥ is better because you can get rid of your ♦ loser on the ♠ length. 6♠ is as good as 6NT since you don't need ruffs and if the suits behave you have 12 tricks, no more no less.

[Kalvan14]

The FA I have been playing for the last 15 years or so is something quite different, and focusses on concentration of values, and lack of side controls - either by honors or by shornesses (and, accordingly, it does not happen all that often).

This is all fine and dandy...

 

I'll simply make the observation that the expression "Fast Arrival" is already quite well defined. Using this expression in a new and different manner really isn't conducive to effective communication.

 

Get over it.

You are wrong

You have confused "Fast Arrival" and "Picture Jumps"

Learn...

I beg to differ: I never played a FA which just gives an indication of minimum values. An picture bidding is a bit different, and with a wider scope.

 

Frankly, guys, I could not care less: I may (or may not) have misquoted Hardy, and when I have time and not better things to do I may go and check it.

But - if you do not mind - I find this discussion a bit childish; and limited in scope.

[Robert]

Hi Kalvan14

 

What hrothgar said does describe FA as shown in Max Hardy's book.

 

You cited Max Hardy and were so 'informed' by not one but two members.

 

Now you claim that the source that you cited for your FA style might not be

 

accurate? Why cite a source for a method, 'if' you do not play the methods?

 

Picture jumps might describe 'some' of your bidding. FA does not.

 

Why is it childish to 'inform' someone that their 'quoted' source does not agree

 

with their stated version of the 'facts?'

 

Admitting that you made a mistake when you are wrong is an adult trait.

 

Again let me state that you may play any method that you like. But calling it FA

 

is not accurate. I play a lot of modified conventions, but I do list 'z' modified.

 

Happy holidays to everyone.

 

Best regards,

Robert

[Kalvan14]

Dear Robert, as usual you lost another good opportunity to be silent.

 

I went and check Two over One Game Force, by Max Hardy, 2nd printing, August 1982. On page 45 (Chapter 3 - para. 2/1 Response) Max says:

 

Quote

"If responder jumps to game in opener's major suit after his initial 2/1 response in an auction where opener's values are still unknown, he again uses the principle of Fast Arrival, but this time his purpose is to convey that a complete picture of his hand has been given. The message sent by responder in this auction is that all of his values are in the 2 suits he has bid, his hand is a minimum for a GF auction and that he has no high card or shortness control in either of the 2 suits he has not bid"

Unquote

 

Being charitable (it is Christmas, and so on) I will assume that you just jumped on the 1st definition of FA you found (page 18 - unfortunately it refers to opener, and not to responder), and which (luckily) suited your argument, without checking other parts of the book (strange, since there is an analytical index at the end of the book, and you can easily check all references to a given topic).

 

Now let me see if you are an adult, or a spoiled teen-ager.

 

Have a happy 2006

 

PS: both the quote and the wishes for 2006 are addressed to hrotgar too

[Robert]

My dear, dear Kalvan14

 

How many posts do you put up on this forum? The pot calling the kettle black?

 

I quoted the 'more' recent Max Hardy Book. I do believe that I also have the

 

'older' thin red covered paperback. I will check to see if Mr. Hardy 'changed his

 

mind.' Why do you suppose that Mr. Hardy 'changed' his mind in the 1989 version

 

of 2/1 bidding. He changed to the normal meaning of FA?

 

Who jumped to the first definition? I quoted from his "more" recent work. You

 

feel that a writers older work is his current thinking? Explain that if you can.

 

Dear, dear Kalvan14 Max Hardy has at least two versions of 2/1 the red cover

 

and the yellow cover. I suspect that he also has a more recent version than his

 

1989 'yellow' covered book.

 

Who is cherry picking his examples? You ignore his more recent example hands

 

and definition from his 'more' recent booK? Why is that?

 

You appear to be still confused since the auction we are talking about is your

 

suggestion that 1S-2H-3H opener has not limited his hand. Playing FA(according to

 

Max Hardy) he has 'shown' extra values. You also failed to explain why you bid 2H

 

with a 4 card suit and your source(Max Hardy) promises 5+ hearts for the 1S-2H

 

auction.

 

hrothgar is not someone to trifle with. Just my guess. Good luck with his reply.

 

I will check my "older" red covered Max Hardy.

 

The last time I was a teenager, South Vietnam was still fighting against North

 

Vietnam.

 

Anyone who quotes from a more recent source that disagrees with you is a spoiled

 

teenager? Would you like to buy a lovely bridge in Brooklyn? I can offer you the

 

bridge for a really a good price? Consider it a post Christmas sale price.

 

It is Christmas night.

 

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

 

Best regards,

Robert

[hrothgar]

"If responder jumps to game in opener's major suit after his initial 2/1 response in an auction where opener's values are still unknown, he again uses the principle of Fast Arrival, but this time his purpose is to convey that a complete picture of his hand has been given. The message sent by responder in this auction is that all of his values are in the 2 suits he has bid, his hand is a minimum for a GF auction and that he has no high card or shortness control in either of the 2 suits he has not bid"

The fact that you can find an isolated quote of Hardy's that backs your position still doesn't establish that your definition of Fast Arrival is standard usage. I'd appreciate it if someone could check the Encyclopedia of Bridge and see what it has to say:

 

For kicks and giggles, I just Googled Fast Arrival and Bridge: Here are the top links:

 

The Bridge World: http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...y&f=glossf.html

 

Fast arrival

 

A jump to the level the bidding is already forced to deny extra values. [e.g., one heart--two clubs--two spades--four spades to show spade support but a minimum two-club response]. The Bridge World site also has quotes describing Fast Arrival the "opposite" of Picture Jumps.

 

Heres an interesting quote from Fred Gitelman which seems directly relevant

http://www.imp-bridge.nl/articles/2over1.htm

 

PROBLEM 2: The (misguided) principle of fast arrival

 

You hold this hand:

 

S xxx H AQJxx D Ax C KJx

 

You open 1H, partner forces to game with 2C. You raise to 3C (isn't it nice to know partner has a good five card suit?) and partner jumps to 4H. What should you do now? If you play 2/1 the way that most pairs do, partner's unnecessary jump in a forcing auction shows a minimum hand (the principle of fast arrival). That information is not very useful here.

 

Opposite this minimum:

 

S Qxx H Kxx D Kx C AQxxx

 

the five level is not safe. The problem here is the jump to 4S. This bid deprives you of finding out at a safe level whether or not a spade control exists.

 

2/1 OKB Style Simplified http://www.annam.co.uk/2-1.html

 

The concept of "fast arrival", jumping to game to show less strength than a lower raise, should only apply in situations when opener is usually minimum. This is when opener rebids 2NT or rebids his opening suit, the catchall. Thus:

1-2-2NT-4 and 1-2-2-4 show a minimum GF hand with 3+ support.

 

Bridge Buff: http://www.bridgebuff.com/convfastslow.htm

 

In a game-forcing sequence, a fast jump to game is not as strong as a slower route to game. This approach creates more room for slam exploration. Consider the auction 1S/2C//2H/?? where the 2C response was game forcing. If responder bids 4H, it shows a weaker hand than 3H.

 

Fifth Chair: http://www.fifthchair.org/archive/bidding/Forcing%20bids.pdf

 

Principle of Fast Arrival

 

The principle is basically that when you leap to game, it is usually intended as a signoff bid. So if you make a forcing bid first and then bid game it shows a bit more interest in slam. Bidding game is usually a a sign of giving up on slam.

 

The key point in each of these examples is that they focus on clarifying range rather than controls. I can find a LOT more examples if you really care.

[bearmum]

FIRSTLY WHY is SEVEN ♥ the optimum contract? -- only 4/4 fit (useless against a 5/0 dist if in SEVEN ♥)

Since nobody cared to respond to the question asked: 7♥ is better because you can get rid of your ♦ loser on the ♠ length. 6♠ is as good as 6NT since you don't need ruffs and if the suits behave you have 12 tricks, no more no less.

TY Free -- nice to get away from the two folks going on and on and ON about FA :o according to Hardy :angry:

 

Hope everyone had a good Christmas and 2006 will be a happy and peaceful one for you all :D

[temp3600]

Christmas did arrive fast this year. Happy holydays to everyone !

[Kalvan14]

This discussion (which I was ready to style childish and boring) would have been over a lot of time ago.

 

This is my last post on the subject:

• I play FA as defined by hardy in the 1982 edition
  
• If Hardy later changed his mind, fine and good; but I am not obliged to buy (or even to read) all the various versions of a bridge book. In any case, even if Hardy - or Culbertson - were to raise from the grave and tell me that the principle of FA is just to show a minimum, i could not care less.
  
• I've never said that this is a "standard".
  

Thank you vry much and Merry Xmas

[hrothgar]

This discussion (which I was ready to style childish and boring) would have been over a lot of time ago.

 

This is my last post on the subject:

• I play FA as defined by hardy in the 1982 edition
  
• If Hardy later changed his mind, fine and good; but I am not obliged to buy (or even to read) all the various versions of a bridge book. In any case, even if Hardy - or Culbertson - were to raise from the grave and tell me that the principle of FA is just to show a minimum, i could not care less.
  
• I've never said that this is a "standard".
  

I fail to understand why you have this bizarre fixation with using the expression "Fast Arrival". No one is criticizing your methods. Rather, we are suggesting that if you value the ability to communicate with other bridge players, you should make an effort to use standard vocabularly. Even if you don't want to use standard vocabulary, you should make a sincere effort to avoid misusing it.

 

You certainly aren't obliged to do so. A 2♣ response to a 1NT opening which asks for a 4 card major can certainly be called a Jacoby transfer. However, you shouldn't be surprised if said usage simply confuses (and potentially irritates) your audience.

[pbleighton]

"I'd appreciate it if someone could check the Encyclopedia of Bridge and see what it has to say"

 

The definition of Fast Arrival, from my 6th edition:

 

"The idea that the faster a contract is reached, the weaker the hand that places the contract; and, conversely, the slower the approach, the stronger the suggestion that a higher contract may be appropriate."

 

Peter

[Kalvan14]

This discussion (which I was ready to style childish and boring) would have been over a lot of time ago.

 

This is my last post on the subject:

• 
   
  
• I play FA as defined by hardy in the 1982 edition
   
  
• If Hardy later changed his mind, fine and good; but I am not obliged to buy (or even to read) all the various versions of  a bridge book. In any case, even if Hardy - or Culbertson  - were to raise from the grave and  tell me that the principle of FA  is just to show a minimum, i could not care less.
   
  
• I've never said that this is a "standard".
   
  

I fail to understand why you have this bizarre fixation with using the expression "Fast Arrival". No one is criticizing your methods. Rather, we are suggesting that if you value the ability to communicate with other bridge players, you should make an effort to use standard vocabularly. Even if you don't want to use standard vocabulary, you should make a sincere effort to avoid misusing it.

It's quite simple: because I learn abt FA more than 20 years ago from Hardy's book on 2/1. There was no intention of offending, at least on my side.