2C Gadget

[the hog]

The following may be of interest, sparked by a previous posting. Ken Rexford wrote about 1M 2C. here is the Polish 2C gadget, straight from Strefa.

 

2C Gadget

 

1M 2C is asking for strength and distribution; it can be bid on these hand types:

 

5+C, 12+ HCP

5+C, 9-11 with 3 card fit for opened Major

Balanced hand, with or without fit, 16+ points

Strong hand with fit. – in this case we can have longer D or H, not very good suit

 

Note that responder does not have to relay, 1S - 2H is GF, 1S - 2D is GF unless responder bids opener’s Major at minimum possible level, when it shows 9-11 with 5D and a 3 card fit.

 

2N rebid by responder if not step relay, always is 16+

 

Developments

 

1M 2C

2D

Any minimum. Over this 2H = GF relay and the responses are as for maximum hands

 

2S = regardless of which Major was opened, this shows 5C and 3 card support for the Major, 10-11 HCP

 

2N = 16+ ba

 

3D = D suit, game forcing

 

 

1M 2C

2H 4 other M, any strength

Now

2S = relay/2N/3M = invitational

2N = 4522 min

3 = C fragment

3D = D fragment

3H = 5/5 shape Now 3S asks for low/high shortage

3S = 6M low shortage

3N = 6M high shortage 11-14

4C = 6M high shortage 15+

 

 

1M 2C

2H 3D Invit with 5C and 3 card support for opened Major – note impossible rebid by responder, makes no sense to bid 3D otherwise

By resp 2N 16+ balanced

3M Sets suit RKCB

 

 

 

1M 2C

2N One suited hand, 15+

 

Now 3C Asks 3D/H/S = shortage in D/C/other Major 3N = 6233 or 7222

 

 

1M 2C

3C 5M 4D 15+

Now 3• asks for shortage - Low/High/No shortage

 

 

1M 2C

3D 5M/5D, 15+

Now 3H asks for shortage

 

3H 6M/4D, 15+

Now 3S asks for shortage.

 

3S 5M/4D/4 other M, 15-17

 

3N 5M/4D/4 other M, 18+

 

Rules:

 

After opener has shown 2 suits, step asks for shortage

1 step = low, 2 steps = high

3N is always to play

 

If relayer does not ask for shortage

 

Step +1 sets longest suit and is RKCB

Step + 2 sets second suit and is RKCB

3N is never a step

4D is the end signal

[kenrexford]

This is interesting. It is similar in motivation to Golady 2♣ plus Toddler 2♦.

 

The rough description of Toddler 2♦ is a start with three diamonds on many invitational hands. 2♣, in contrast, is a GF relay, with Opener bidding one-under a second suit, one-under opened suit possible also. It allows description of Opener's pattern (Responder much more captain than usual), with an additional benefit of "completing" the transfer to set trumps and initiate asking bids. E.g., 1♠-P-2♣!-P-2♦(5♠/4♥)-P-2♥(agrees hearts, asking bids start; 2♥ is the first asking bid).

 

I like Golady (not Toddler), but I personally only use it after a 1♦ opening (or possibly also after a 1♣ opening, modified to allow stops at 3♣).

[000002]

in my impression,to solve the puzzle of break between strengh and distribution,2♣ response is the most easiest bidding .

 

i am interesting to hear what is bug (u find)in the "old" 2♣ response, and what is advantage in ur new way?

if not , i can predict u r doing empty now----not rude by me, but honestly.

 

 

 

regards 000002

[david_c]

Doesn't everyone play something like this nowadays? :)

 

This particular version seems to be identical to the one on Bocchi/Duboin's card, right down to the 3-level responses. I've always wondered what they do when opener has a balanced (5332) hand. Are these treated as single-suited?

 

Also, can anyone explain why 1M:2C,2S shows clubs while 1M:2C,3C+ shows diamonds? It's always seemed more natural to me to have these the other way round: if responder is balanced it makes little difference, but if responder is unbalanced then opener is much more likely to have diamonds than clubs, so wouldn't it be better to use the cheaper response to show diamonds?

[david_c]

i am interesting to hear what is bug (u find)in the "old" 2♣ response, and what is advantage in ur new way?

It's mainly so that responder has a way to bid strong hands without a good suit, for example:

 

♠ AKx

♥ KJx

♦ Kxxx

♣ QJx

 

What do you respond to 1♥? The good thing about this 2♣ gadget is that you can respond 2♣ without partner expecting you to have a good suit. (Your rebid will show whether you have real clubs or not.) Also, when you have a strong balanced hand like this, relay bidding works much better than natural bidding, so the continuations after 2♣ include a sort of relay system.

 

And at the same time, whenever you don't use the relay, partner knows that you are promising a good suit. In other 2/1 systems this isn't so clear. There are alternative ways to solve this problem, but a 2♣ gadget is best IMO.

[hrothgar]

i am interesting to hear what is bug (u find)in the "old" 2♣ response, and what is advantage in ur new way?

It's mainly so that responder has a way to bid strong hands without a good suit, for example:

 

♠ AKx

♥ KJx

♦ Kxxx

♣ QJx

 

What do you respond to 1♥? The good thing about this 2♣ gadget is that you can respond 2♣ without partner expecting you to have a good suit. (Your rebid will show whether you have real clubs or not.) Also, when you have a strong balanced hand like this, relay bidding works much better than natural bidding, so the continuations after 2♣ include a sort of relay system.

 

And at the same time, whenever you don't use the relay, partner knows that you are promising a good suit. In other 2/1 systems this isn't so clear. There are alternative ways to solve this problem, but a 2♣ gadget is best IMO.

I've never really understood gadgets like this artifical 2♣ bid.

 

Relay methods are fine and dandy, however, if you want to play relay play a real relay system and use a first step response as your artificial advance.

[awm]

This type of 2♣ approach is favored by many of the top Italian players so I wouldn't just dismiss it. I think the reasoning is something like the following:

 

- There are definite advantages to relay bidding. It's particularly effective when you have a pair of hands which are in the slam zone and the person doing the relaying has a fairly balanced shape.

 

- However, there are a number of problems with a true "relay system." In particular, there's some need to utilize the lowest bid on weakish hands in order to improve the partial. True "relay systems" seem to have serious difficulties after a natural 1♠ opening when responder is weak and 1NT would be the relay. Also, not every strong hand proceeds best via relay bidding; for example when responder holds an unbalanced one or two-suiter, it's often best for responder to describe his own hand (either naturally or by letting opener relay) rather than responder trying to relay out opener's hand. And relay systems are sometimes vulnerable to preemptive calls by 4th hand, because the relayer has given absolutely no information about his hand other than general strength, making it harder to determine whether to penalize (whereas in a natural 2/1 GF system a lot more shape information is available). Relay methods are also poor at "stopper-finding" auctions which are common when responder has a fairly minimum game hand and the goal is only to reach 3NT when it's right.

 

- Relay methods work better opposite limited openings (for the most part). When opener is more wide-ranging, you need a way for opener to "take over" after responder chooses not to relay (shows a weak hand) which again makes it harder to fit the weak hands in when the lowest call is a relay (i.e. you can't pass the opening, and when opener pulls a "to play" bid there is now ambiguity over whether this shows extras or simply a shapely misfit).

 

- Relay methods are substantially anti-field, and (assuming you use natural openings) also tend to place the well-described hand as declarer. Obviously on some hands this will not matter, but playing a true "relay system" means you suffer these disadvantages on virtually all hands.

 

In any case the general approach (which I believe to be excellent) is to try to start auctions naturally but then create an option to relay starting from responder's second bid. This maintains relays as a valuable approach when responder is fairly balanced and slammish, while also maintaining the ability to get to a reasonable partial when responder is weak (or for opener to take over and force game when responder is weak) and maintaining some degree of field protection.

 

Anyways I'd bet the results from Garozzo and the other Italians (Bocchi/Duboin and DeFalco/Ollina certainly use this kind of method, to name just a few) are substantially better than the results we usually see from people playing full relay systems. Of course it might be that they are better defenders or card players too, but their bidding seems mighty accurate to me from the times I've kibitzed. I wouldn't dismiss this approach.

[hrothgar]

Adam:

 

I don't disagree with anything you say, however, I'm not sure that much of it really applies to my original point:

 

Lets assume that you open 1H showing 5+ hearts and some point count. Furthermore, you decide that you want to have some artificial response showing GF values and a balanced hand. I've seen a lot of systems that use 1♠ as a natural bid, showing 4+ Spades and 2♣ as the artifical force. I argue that it (probably) makes more sense to use 1♠ as the artificial game force and shove the natural hands with 4+ Spades somewhere else (1NT, 2♣, whatever)

 

I'm discussing the specific merits of how these bids are allocated, not the wider issue of relay methods

[awm]

I think the issue is "how can we gain some of the advantages associated with relay methods, without suffering the disadvantages?"

 

If you make the lowest bid the relay, then you are going to have a lot of problems on hands where the natural bidders start with the lowest call. Of course, it's possible that the benefit of being a level or two lower on the relay hands makes up for this (if it was obvious that it didn't, no one would play relay systems) but you're definitely trading substantial losses on some hands for substantial gains on others.

 

But suppose you're gunning for methods that are simply "an improvement" over natural 2/1 bidding with very few negatives. Incorporating a relay structure over 1M-2♣ definitely gains something over natural bidding in this auction, especially if 2♣ is your normal response with a game-forcing balanced hand holding no obvious suit (i.e. 1M-2♦ would show real diamonds). "Standard" constructive bidding with non-GF hands is essentially maintained. The only possible disadvantage here is on hands which bid 2♣ in a natural system. But the vast majority of these hands are either balanced/semi-balanced (and so would be better off to relay anyway) or one-suited clubs (and the method should make it easy to bid a normal 3♣ rebid with these hands).

 

By the way, I agree that it would seem to make more sense for 1M-2♣-2♠ to show diamonds and 1M-2♣-3♣+ to show clubs, since when responder is balanced it wouldn't seem to matter and when responder has a hand with a bunch of clubs there is some advantage to being able to break relays when opener has diamonds (so as to look for a stopper in the other major for example) whereas opener having a bunch of clubs also is much less common and usually you want to make a serious slam effort in this case anyway (where relaying is more beneficial).

[000002]

In the point of my view, the bug in the 1M-2♣ is concerning on 2 field-which AWM ever point out in the upper post.i indicate it with instance:

1)open 1♠,select an method to respond with this typical hand:

AQ

Axxx

Axxx

Jxx

no corrective bidding exists in the natural system,sigh---

2)how to solve the conflict (responsive hand)between strength and length,something like 6♣-4M:

?

Q?

AKxx

AKJxxx

somtimes the doubleton on the opening's suit is uppermost important but sometimes it's inessential.

 

does there have another real important vice?

if it's existing,i honestly learn from him.

 

by the way , i think italian doesn't have a real good system about bridge.but i must say that i admired them ,because they discuss the detail as their possible.i believe these is the essential reason why italian gain so many rebound of bridge.

 

 

regards 000002

[han]

Completely agree with what Adam said in his last post.