Socal bidding poll problems

[Guest Jlall]

Thats an interesting theory, and it happens to be one that I mostly subscribe to, but thats all it is, its a theory. I am waiting to see you open 1N on Ax Qxx AQxxxx Kx opposite an unpassed hand or 2N on AQ KQxxx KJxx AJ. Since your contention is that all bids tell opposite a hand that hasn't limited himself. I contend that all bids tell within the context of what is known about partner's hand, and the meaning of all bids depends somewhat on what partner has shown. For instance, when 3 suits have been bid, NT bids tell. They say someting about stoppers in the 4'th suit, and sometimes strength. They do not tell about shape.

 

In general I see the following tednancy: players have no problem taking a hand without NT shape and bidding NT on it, but seem to have a problem taking a hand with NT shape and bidding suits with it. I don't completely understand this, and I am one of the biggest advocates of showing hand type at your first opportunity.

 

So maybe I think the problem here is that we disagree about what a 2NT rebid shows? I think it shows a hand worth 18-19 (e.g. inv) that is balanced and has stoppers in the unbid suits. It is sometimes bid on hands that are close to this (semi-balanced, stiff honor, no stopper or partial stopper in a suit, etc.) but that is a decision that that is the lessor of some number of evils, but is not what the bid shows. Some hands are imperfect for any action....

 

Next you are going to tell me that after 1D-(1S)-x-(P) you all are going to rebid 2N because you happen to be 18-19 balanced.... (I think 2N might be a better bid in this auction with the stopperless 2 card spade suit that when the opps haven't bid, since partner's stopper, if he has one, probably remains a stopper with LHO likely having the spade values).

I would always open the 6322 hand with 1N. I believe that 1N openers can often be 5422 hands with 5 card minors, or 6322 hands. In the context of all of my partnerships this would not be a distortion. But please note I did not say that distorting your hand is always wrong. There are cases where ANY BID YOU MAKE will be a distortion, or lead to having to make a distortion later in the auction. What constitutes a distortion is solely dependent on the agreement of the meaning of the bid.

 

Your second hand is a good example of this. I would indeed open 2N (a distortion imo), because opening 1H will inevitably lead to distorting my hand. If I treat it as not a balanced hand, I must open 1H and rebid 3D. However, my partners would always expect better suit quality. If I opened 1H and rebid 2N, I would be underbidding. No matter how I bid the hand I will have to distort it because issues like suit quality cloud being able to make a clear description of the hand.

 

I definitely agree with you that our fundamental disagreement is what a 2N rebid shows after the auction 1m p 1y p 2N. To you it shows stoppers in the unbid suits. I think this agreement is inferior to the more normal agreement that it just shows 18-19 balanced. Basically, I feel you emphasize right siding the contract too much and it becomes detrimental to your constructive bidding when you have 18-19 bal with a suit unstopped. Obviously you feel differently, and I totally understand that.

 

However, I think that bringing up an auction like 1D-(1S)-X-p is totally different. As far as I know, most people worry about stoppers when:

 

There is 1 suit unbid or

The opponents have bid a suit

 

Clearly worrying about stoppers in those 2 cases make a lot of sense. Additionally, here we have an artificial cuebid available that will often include a hand with 18-19 balanced and no stopper.

 

I would contend in that auction that you will often have to rebid ONE no trump without a stopper, unless you are willing to make up suits.

 

I still believe the costs of your way of playing a 2N rebid are far too great. They mess up the integrity of your jumpshifts and whatever clarity there is in subsequent auctions, leading to lots of guessing. Even with xx opp xx, they won't always lead the suit.

[joshs]

I just disagree what the "more normal agreement" is. If everyone agreed that 2N was just 18-19 balanced this hand type wouldn't appear in master solvers club every other year. The reason that many hand type keep re-appearing in MSC is that the set of meaning for bids is not exaustive so there are occaisonally hands that are imperfect for any action. the modern majority style is to rebid 2N on this hand type, but raise 1H to 2H on a 2344 13 count with 2 small spades and Hxx in hearts (is that a distortion? 100% of french players would call that a major distortion). But both are far from universal, and what you do with certain hand types doesn't mean that thats part of the meaning of the bid, it just might be the closest thing.

30 years ago, 2N would have been a minority rebid on this hand type, but styles have changed.

 

As to the integrity of jump shifts, what integrity? We frequently JS on 3 card suits, and sometimes 2 card suits. Again 30 years ago, JSing on 4-4 was common. But why is 6-3 OK, but 4-4 not? 4-4 isn't a common JS hand type today, so its usually a question of percentages. For which "distortions" can you handle the auction effectively, at least most of the time.

 

As to what I play, I play a lot of very regid systems, that force you to show hand type (e.g. general shape) at bid 2 indpendant of honor location. I consider this rigidity to be a weakness (For instance AKQxx xx AKx xxx has to be shown as balanced in my club system, I can't just show 5S and then wing it) but is the price I play for methods where every bid shows something very specific, often via ART means. Just because I play these regid methods, doesn't mean that I don't recognize there are weaknesses assocaited with them....But its also very rare in my methods to be showing balanced hands at the 2N level, since the main point of showing a balanced hand type is to let partner pattern out, so the balanced hand can evaluate his honors ("the balanced hand principle"). Its hard to be able to pattern out over 2N rebids.

[joshs]

Lets say we had this auction:

xx AKx Kxxx Kxxx

Jxx Qxxx Q9x AQJ

 

1D-1H-2H(you with me so far?)-2N(Forcing)-

and now, sadly, you don't have a way of showing a balanced 3 card raise, so you opt for 3C showing 3 hearts and 4+ clubs (so either 1354 or 1345) and here we are with the same problem again (since your only choices were to show 4 card raises or 3 card raises with a singleton)....

 

Maybe in the context of the system 2H is wrong. But when your partner orginally said he wanted to play those responses to 2N, and you objected saying that you frequently raise on 3 cards and a balanced hand, he said well then just describe the closest thing.... (This was a real partnership of mine, with a player who has won a national championship, admittely it was the fast pairs...)

 

So what can I say? Hopefully a system can handle the vast majority of hands it sticks in a particular bucket...

[Guest Jlall]

I just disagree what the "more normal agreement" is. If everyone agreed that 2N was just 18-19 balanced this hand type wouldn't appear in master solvers club every other year.

I read every issue of the bridge world and have never seen a hand where it went 1m p 1M p ? and we had 18-19 balanced and a two small suit. Maybe you could reference these problems that you are talking about.