17 points, 6 hearts

[foo]

Historical note:

SJS were invented as a way to deal with psyches by Opener.  The point of an SJS back then was to say "You're busted.  I know you're busted.  Nonetheless We very likely have a Game.  Start telling me what I need to know."

 

After public opinion pretty much killed off controlled psyches (and most psyches in general), the SJS evolved into a slam exploration tool with very specific characteristics.

You may be correct, but, if so, my collection of old bridge books is sadly lacking. I will have to dig out some of the older books, but my recollection of what the majority of early writers recommended was that the jump takeout was needed to establish a force. Psychics were a part of the game, and became extremely popular in the late 30's amongst a handful of tournament players and some big-name rubber players... I have some wonderful historical writings on psychic bidding back then. But the SJS predated the popularity of psychic bidding. My suspicion, based on the leading systems books of the day, is that the vast majority of bridge players (relatively few of whom were tournament players) knew next to nothing about psyches. They learned SJS as a way to reach game or slam.

This one, like many other potentially important facts regarding Bridge (example: go find documentation as to what Expert Standard is for instance- you can't.), is not in any books I know of.

 

Go look at some =old= high level tournament records. Or go gab a while with any of the remaining high level players old enough to actually remember this stuff.

 

Said lack of popular documentation is one of the reasons I try to teach this stuff as widely as possible. Lest "the Guildmaster died before passing on <foo>" effect of the Middle Ages occur in places within Bridge as well.

 

Unfortunately, it already has in some topics of Bridge lore :rolleyes:

[Stephen Tu]

1= "New Minor Forcing" is misnamed and should actually be called "New Minor Artificial".

It's not that a new minor was forcing or not before, it's that NMF allows you to make this bid even if you have a void in the bid minor...

 

No, foo, you are wrong on this one. NMF is a very old convention. At the time it was named, the "old books" as you say were the standard, & it was better known apparently that new minor after 1nt was non-forcing w/o special agreements.

 

(You may not believe this, I certainly had a hard time with it)

In older books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is non forcing.

In newer books 1m-1M;1N-2om natural is forcing.

 

Newer books, plural, really? I am surprised Audrey Grant says this. Which other books say it? My bridge education consisted of reading hundreds of bridge books, including the entire collection of 3 municipal libraries & a university library. I am quite certain that I have never seen the new minor forcing natural treatment in print. Audrey Grant is one of the few common books I did not read.

 

You suggested by inference that Kantar's "Bridge For Dummies" also is teaching forcing natural. I took a look at the book, on this topic (new suit rebids after 1nt rebid) he is silent completely. So you are wrong here. Also, note that in FredG's Learn To Play Bridge program for the ACBL (also available on BBO), which surely also has to be considered a modern std, if not *THE* modern std, for teaching new players, if you go through the tutorial you will see that it very explicitly states that a 2d bid here is non-forcing & gives an example hand on which it should be bid. So I would not say that "newer books, 2d natural forcing". I think you found one oddball book, at best. I don't have Grant, so I can't verify, if you were wrong about Kantar perhaps also wrong about her? But I will give you benefit of doubt about her book. Perhaps you can quote the passage?

 

Frankly, I think everyone you interviewed who claim natural forcing as standard treatment is simply confused as you are. They have been playing NMF for so many decades that they don't remember what the natural non-conventional meaning is.

 

For my part, I have always agreed with the more modern logic. If Responder has a minimum, they should not be introducing new strains that might force the auction to 2N; particularly after Opener has shown a minimum.

 

Why would the auction ever be forced to 2nt? After a new suit NF rebid, opener is supposed to pass or take preference. Responder has shown a weak 5-5, it should play in one of those suits.

 

As for logic, consider this after 1c-1S-1nt: is it simpler to teach a new player that all the 2 level suit bids after this are natural non-forcing, or that 2d is the oddball natural forcing exception? To me, if teaching 2d is forcing, it would make more sense to simply teach them that 2d is NMF convention, and functions as a delayed pseudo-stayman like bid. Natural & forcing doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, it's inconsistent with 1c-1s-1nt-2h NF which hopefully everyone who's any good agrees is std. It's more logical to me that if no convention used, to teach 1c-1s-1nt-2d is simply the same as 1c-1s-1nt-2h except having diamonds instead of hearts.

 

It is vitally important that the B & I's reading this get the correct information.

I agree, and think my viewpoint is correct. If you want to teach them forcing, tell them it is the NMF convention and proceed accordingly, and tell them that NMF should be agreed w/ partner. But if they ever choose some other checkback mechanism, such as one-way checkback stayman (2c always the checkback), then the 2d bid should revert to its std natural meaning, and to me clearly non-forcing has greater utility than natural forcing.

[mikeh]

Historical note:

SJS were invented as a way to deal with psyches by Opener.  The point of an SJS back then was to say "You're busted.  I know you're busted.  Nonetheless We very likely have a Game.  Start telling me what I need to know."

 

After public opinion pretty much killed off controlled psyches (and most psyches in general), the SJS evolved into a slam exploration tool with very specific characteristics.

You may be correct, but, if so, my collection of old bridge books is sadly lacking. I will have to dig out some of the older books, but my recollection of what the majority of early writers recommended was that the jump takeout was needed to establish a force. Psychics were a part of the game, and became extremely popular in the late 30's amongst a handful of tournament players and some big-name rubber players... I have some wonderful historical writings on psychic bidding back then. But the SJS predated the popularity of psychic bidding. My suspicion, based on the leading systems books of the day, is that the vast majority of bridge players (relatively few of whom were tournament players) knew next to nothing about psyches. They learned SJS as a way to reach game or slam.

This one, like many other potentially important facts regarding Bridge (example: go find documentation as to what Expert Standard is for instance- you can't.), is not in any books I know of.

 

Go look at some =old= high level tournament records. Or go gab a while with any of the remaining high level players old enough to actually remember this stuff.

 

Said lack of popular documentation is one of the reasons I try to teach this stuff as widely as possible. Lest "the Guildmaster died before passing on <foo>" effect of the Middle Ages occur in places within Bridge as well.

 

Unfortunately, it already has in some topics of Bridge lore :rolleyes:

Foo, you are not the Guildmaster :) Neither am I.

 

And there are NO current players who remember the origins of the game, as best as I know. The game developed in the late 1920's, so a young player of 25 or so would now be well past 100. I am not saying that there is no one left alive who actually played bridge in the late 1920's, but I am saying that none of the then-dominant experts remain alive.

 

Roth was probably the closest we had to that era, and he just passed away. But his heyday was the late 1940s into the 1960s.

 

As for the ability to recall or reconstruct the standard methods of the day, the truth is that you can, in any large city, probably find several relevant books in any good used book store... and, if not, go on ebay.

 

I collect old books on the game of bridge and its precursors....whist, Royal Auction Bridge, Auction Bridge and just plain old 'Bridge'. One of my favourites is The Bridge Manual by John Doe, 1902.

 

As for contract, there were a number of professional Auction players and teachers when Contract came along and several of them quickly set up as teachers of the new game. Thus we have books by Work (the inventor of the 4321 count) and Foster (the inventor of the Foster Echo and the discoverer, while a professional whist player in the 1880s of the Rule of 11), to name just two who published on Contract in the late 1920s... several years before Culbertson published the Blue Book.

 

Others published their own books, and a group of pros got together under the name of The Bridge Headquarters to publish the so-called 'Official System'... they were really pissed off at Culbertson and were trying, unsuccessfully, to dethrone him.

 

All of their methods appear antiquated to us, and the fact that they all used honour tricks as the primary evaluation method makes reading the books difficult.

 

But it is possible to track the changes in standard treatment, including the struggle over conversion to high card point count, not only in later books but also in the BW... a bastion of Culbertson thinking into the late 1940s, but in which the editors occasionally encouraged articles by promoters of point count, such as Fred Karpin.

 

A true student of the history of the game can actually find out a tremendous amount about it... including, as I wrote earlier, that the SJS was NOT invented to cater to psychic bidding. Yes, it later became a tool for that, but remember that psychic bidding NEVER became a significant part of most expert's arsenal. Look at Goren, for example. Look at the record of the Lenz-Culbertson challenge: Lenz fired the young Oswald Jacoby precisely because Oswald was to fond of psyching. Most experts in those days did not psyche much and they all used SJS.

[foo]

Stephen,

 

You are correct that Kantar does not explicitly say that 1m-1M;1N-2lower is forcing.

 

But the implication is there in the fact that he discusses all the pertinent possiblities in other auctions and that he never feels he has to explicitly list this auction as an exception.

 

Taking a preference is demonstrated on p209

Rebidding your suit in a minimum Responding hand is demonstrated on p210 and p215

Passing 1N is demonstrated on p211.

 

!nowhere! does Kantar give an example or state that it is proper for a minimum Responder to introduce a new suit on the 2nd round of bidding.

 

The implication should be that clearly a minimum Responder should not introduce a new suit on the 2nd round of bidding.

 

 

Now let's try a logic experiment. Let's pretend -none- of the books existed and we were tasked with figuring out the best meanings should be here.

 

Your proposal is that 1m-1M;1N-2lower is NF. Mine is that a new suit here =is= forcing.

 

Your POV, what does Responder have to do to force Opener?

1C-1S;1N-??

2c? Nope it's a Preference

2d / 2h ? Nope they are lower ranking than Responder's 1st suit.

2s? Nope

2n? Nope

Hmmm. In your proposed methods, the only way for Responder to force Opener is to double jump bid with GF hands.

 

My POV:

1C-1S;1N-??

2c? Preference

2d / 2h? forcing

2s? Nope

2n? Nope

Under this system, Responder can force Opener 2 ways w/o having to jump the bidding which means jumps in these strains can be GF. Saving Us a whole level of bidding.

Now, what was the meaning in Old Fashioned Standard of Responder's 2nd round jumps in new suits?

Answer: that they were GF.

 

Invitational 2nd round jumps in new strains by Responder only became possible and popular after the advent of 4SF, NMF, etc.

 

 

QED 1m-1M;1N-2lower is forcing playing "natural" SA w/o conventions for these situations.

[foo]

mikeh,

 

I certainly am !not! claiming any sort of special status!

 

Funny you should mention Al Roth. He, Norman Kay and a few others are one of the places I learned some of this history.

 

I'll see if I can get you a reference that you'll accept as definitive. It might take awhile.

 

In the meantime,

Re; the early history bridge and of SJS: none of my copies of

_Practical Auction Bridge_

_Lenz on Bridge_

circa 1926

talk about SJS AFAICS.

 

Culbertson's Red Book or Gold Book circa 1938 does.

calling it "The Forcing Takeout" response to an opening of 1ofasuit.

Interestingly, Culbertson's SJS looked very like Soloway's would ~30-40 years later.

Anyway some SJS examples from p183 of the 1938 edition of _Contract Bridge Complete: the new gold book_. All are 1H-??

 

1H-2S;

AK9xx.Kxx.AQ8x.x

AQJ8.QJx.AKxx.KT

AKJxxx.x.KQ8.Axx

 

1H-3C;

xx.QT9x.Ax.AKQxx

 

1H-3D;

Ax.Q8x.AK8x.KQxx

-.Q9xx.AKQxxx.KQx

 

They all look remarkable familar even ~70 years later.

 

As for the history of psyching, it definitely reached a peak in the 1950's and 1960's.

That is when I was told SJS began being heavily used as psychic controls.

[Stephen Tu]

You are correct that Kantar does not explicitly say that 1m-1M;1N-2lower is forcing.

 

But the implication is there in the fact that he discusses all the pertinent possiblities in other auctions and that he never feels he has to explicitly list this auction as an exception.

 

The implication should be that clearly a minimum Responder should not introduce a new suit on the 2nd round of bidding.

 

You are leaping to a conclusion that is unsupported by the overwhelming vast majority of other literature on the topic that does address the issue explicitly. Kantar, in a book for the rawest of beginners, simply declined to discuss this topic for space reasons, or perhaps it simply slipped his mind to address it. If you wrote an e-mail to Kantar (ekbridge@earthlink.net) asking his views on the topic, I am confident he would affirm the non-forcing viewpoint as the std assumption to be taught to beginners. Actually, I'll e-mail him & see if he responds.

 

 

Now let's try a logic experiment. Let's pretend -none- of the books existed and we were tasked with figuring out the best meanings should be here.

 

Your proposal is that 1m-1M;1N-2lower is NF. Mine is that a new suit here =is= forcing.

 

Your POV, what does Responder have to do to force Opener?

Jump to the 3 level in a new suit surely is forcing for anyone if NMF not agreed.

 

Hmmm. In your proposed methods, the only way for Responder to force Opener is to double jump bid with GF hands.

Single jump bid.

 

My POV:

1C-1S;1N-??

2c? Preference

2d / 2h? forcing

2s? Nope

2n? Nope

The population of good players for whom 1c-1s-1nt-2h would be considered forcing is something like 0.001% IMO.

 

Now, what was the meaning in Old Fashioned Standard of Responder's 2nd round jumps in new strains?

Answer: that they were GF.

Exactly, and this is the assumption if NMF is not being played.

The only invitational sequence is 2nt, and possibly 3 of previously bid suits

although that is potentially ambiguous. NMF enabled invitational sequences. But without it, standard never morphed into this form where new suits were by default natural forcing. That is your own invention.

 

QED 1m-1M;1N-2lower is forcing playing "natural" SA w/o conventions for these situations.

You are inventing your own logic here that has the support of a miniscule number of good players.

[foo]

Stephen,

 

It is irrational to say that 1m-1M;1N-2lower is nf and that 1m-1M;1N-3lower is GF.

What's Responder supposed to do with an invitational hand of those shapes?

Bid 2N or jump rebid their 1st suit regardless of shape?

That would be silly.

 

I'm sorry I can't figure out how to help you further. Go get a copy of _The ACBL Club Series_. Look on p120.

 

As I said, _The ACBL Series_ defines novice SA.

 

Not out of print books like _Common Sense Bidding_ (no matter how much I like that book. Or the author. Bill Root was one of the Good Guys in Bridge.)

[Stephen Tu]

It is irrational to say that 1m-1M;1N-2lower is nf and that 1m-1M;1N-3lower is GF.

What's Responder supposed to do with an invitational hand of those shapes?

Bid 2N or jump rebid their 1st suit regardless of shape?

That would be silly.

 

It is hardly silly to have few invitational sequences over a narrow 3 pt range 1nt rebid. There are plenty of new-age experts who believe that it is best to just bid game or stay low, avoiding invitational sequences since 2nt/3M often lose when it either makes an over or an under. And the rest are only inviting on a very narrow 1 point range, deciding to sign off or force to game on the rest. So simply deciding to FG or play a partial I don't think is going to lose you much at all, because theoretically you shouldn't be just inviting that often. OTOH, I think you gain a *ton* from being able to play in 2H with a weak 5-5 in the majors & not forcing yourself to declare at the 3 level as in your completely non-std approach. And being able to play 2d is not bad either.

 

I'm sorry I can't figure out how to help you further. Go get a copy of _The ACBL Club Series_. Look on p120.

Unfortunately my local book store doesn't have a copy, and I don't feel like ordering it just for this one issue. Could you please quote the relevant passage?

 

I'm not looking for your "help", BTW. I'm merely trying to prevent any beginner/ints who are lurking reading this, from assuming your statements & logic are correct. They can decide for themselves which of us is making more sense.

 

As I said, _The ACBL Series_ defines novice SA.

 

That's your opinion, and a single book. What about the learn to play bridge program, which is ACBL trumpeted to new players, newer than Grant's book, and most certainly agrees with me? Plus every other book that addresses this sequence specifically that I have ever encountered? Plus the SA-YC document itself, the de facto std for online play?

 

Not out of print books like _Common Sense Bidding_ (no matter how much I like that book. Or the author. Bill Root was one of the Good Guys in Bridge.)

 

Commonsense bidding is not out of print despite the passing of the author, for whom I have far more admiration than Audrey Grant anyway.

[foo]

"When Responder has between 6 and 10 points and Opener has shows a minimum hand, responder knows that the partnership belongs in a parscore since opener can have at most 16 points. ... Therefore responder wants to sign off in the best partscore. He can do this in 1 of 3 ways:

=By passing

=By bidding 1N if the auction is still at the one level

=By rebidding at the two level in a suit already mentioned by the partnership."

 

p120, _The Club Series_ by Audrey Grant.

 

Bear in mind that Audrey does not come up with this stuff on her own. Experts like Eric Rodwell are who is actually responsible for the bidding theory content in the ACBL series.

 

Whether you agree or not, The ACBL Series =is= the de facto standard for novice level SA.

[pbleighton]

Whether you agree or not, The ACBL Series =is= the de facto standard for novice level SA.

 

Why? Because you say so?

 

You're *anonymous*, and spout a lot of nonsense.

 

No one in the Forums takes you seriously.

 

If you calmed down, you might get some respect.

 

If not...

 

Peter

[Stephen Tu]

p120, _The Club Series_ by Audrey Grant.

 

So, even Audrey is not explicitly addressing the sequence after 1nt rebid either, it is just your own (incorrect IMO) extrapolation here also, and she does not state anywhere that new suit is always forcing all the time even after 1nt rebid. The new suit NF after 1nt rebid is just a common std thing, it's in every SA book I know of that talks about the sequence specifically. It is the std exception to the new suits by unpassed responder forcing "rule".

 

Foo, you have no credibility left on this issue.

[foo]

Gentlemen, you are entitled to your opinions.

 

I have provided more logic and references for anything I say than most posters in these forums do, and will continue to do so.

 

You can accept, or not, whatever I say; but don't make the mistake of assuming I'm just talking "off the top of my head".

 

If you don't want to accept better practice, that's your choice.

 

...and I'll continue to do whatever I can to teach people who do listen how to beat those like you who don't. B)

[foo]

Whether you agree or not, The ACBL Series =is= the de facto standard for novice level SA.

 

Why? Because you say so?

 

You're *anonymous*...

No, because logic and expert references say otherwise.

In this case because the =American= Contract Bridge League defines Standard =American=.

 

I stay anonymous for exactly the reason that I want any statements or arguments to stand or fall on their own merits. Not based on perceived merits or flaws of the person posting.

 

...and of course, there's always the fact that some around here are volatile enough that I'm _very_ glad to not have to risk personally confronting them.

[Stephen Tu]

No, because logic and expert references say otherwise.

 

You have provided zero expert book references that explicitly say forcing, you only incorrectly inferred forcing from the books which simply weren't complete enough to address the issue directly. The only logic you provided is your own faulty reasoning.

 

I on the other hand have provided quite a few sources that explicitly, unambiguously say non-forcing, and have explained the reasoning behind it (there are many more hands that clearly want to be in partial or game, than ones those that want to invite, why force to the 3 level in the suit partial if the 2 level scores the same? Force the opps to balance to push you or give you chance to defend).

 

In this case because the =American= Contract Bridge League defines Standard =American=.

Yet in the ACBL produced SAYC document, and the ACBL sponsored and distributed LTPB programs, the sequence is explicitly non-forcing. Also one would have to accept that the ACBL dictates what is considered std. But in my mind that doesn't matter, since practically no one authoritative agrees with you anyway. Especially for 1c-1s-1nt-2h, ask your expert circle & surely you will find far more consensus on that (definitely non-forcing!) than you did on 2d.

[foo]

Actually, one of the stated advantages of playing something like NMF to handle all Major suit(s) oriented hands of Invitational+ strength is that then, and only then,

1m-1S;1N-2H

can be bid with a minimum responding hand with 54 or 55 in the Majors.

 

Without something like NMF, 1m-1S;1N-2H can only be bid by Invitational+ responders.

 

If this was not true, then an Opener who was a minimum =2245 or =2254 and decided (reasonably) to Open 1m and rebid 1N would be in a bit of a pickle opposite a minimum Responder who bid both Majors.

[Stephen Tu]

You don't need NMF for 1m-1s-1nt-2h to be non-forcing. This sequence has been non-forcing since the 40's at least and has never become std forcing as you seem to think.

 

2245 who rebids 1nt is not a problem at all. You take a preference to 2S which is known to be 5 cards long. 5-2 fits are hardly the end of the world. Your comment also makes zero sense; if 2h NF is safe to bid on a minimum playing NMF, why would it not be OK not playing NMF, if openers are bidding minimum 2245 this way in both cases?

 

No one but you and a few other misinformed players are playing 2h as forcing.

 

The main advantage of NMF is more invitational sequences, in particular being able to invite with 5S 4H which is a clear hole in std bidding. But this is such a rare bird, with ~11 pts exactly & that shape, that I and almost everyone but you prefers 2H NF, if NMF is not available, and the only choices are 2H NF & 2H F. 5-10pts, 4-5 hearts, where you want to bid 2h NF, nets you many more boards than 54xx with 11. The invitational hand, just guess whether to bid 2h/3h if NMF not available.

[helene_t]

You don't need NMF for 1m-1s-1nt-2h to be non-forcing. This sequence has been non-forcing since the 40's at least and has never become std forcing as you seem to think.[....]

I agree that 2♥ is non-forcing here. Really surprised there can be discussion about this.

 

What is less clear to me is if 2♥ is a clear sign-off or if opener is allowed to make a game try with a suitable hand. Here, beginners used to be taught that the 1NT rebid shows 13-14 so there is no need for invitational sequences. I suppose you can use 2N as a general force, then, but have never seen that mentioned. It is probably not something you'd like to teach beginners. A raise of 1NT to 2NT is invitational in other situations so it should be so here as well.

 

A more tricky issue is if

1♥-1♠

1N-2m

and

1♦-1M

1N-2♣

 

are canape or longest suit first. Here, beginners are tought it is canape but that may apply only in the context of a 4-cards-up-the-line system.

[pbleighton]

You can accept, or not, whatever I say; but don't make the mistake of assuming I'm just talking "off the top of my head".

 

ROFL.

 

...and I'll continue to do whatever I can to teach people who do listen how to beat those like you who don't

 

So your students will have no problem beating up on Justin and mikeh.

 

ROFLSHWMP.

 

Peter

[foo]

You don't need NMF for 1m-1s-1nt-2h to be non-forcing.  This sequence has been non-forcing since the 40's at least and has never become std forcing as you seem to think.[....]

I agree that 2♥ is non-forcing here. Really surprised there can be discussion about this.

 

What is less clear to me is if 2♥ is a clear sign-off or if opener is allowed to make a game try with a suitable hand. Here, beginners used to be taught that the 1N rebid shows 13-14 so there is no need for invitational sequences. I suppose you can use 2N as a general force, then, but have never seen that mentioned. It is probably not something you'd like to teach beginners. A raise of 1N to 2N is invitational in other situations so it should be so here as well.

...and I'm just as surprised in the reverse.

 

One of the things this thread is really driving home to me is how unused to playing "natural" SA most players are. Gadgets get added so fast and played so exclusively that people evidently forget what their true overall effect is on SA.

 

When teaching beginners (at anything), it is important to make things as logically consistent as possible and to have as few exceptions or contradictions to overall principles as possible.

 

Thus we teach Responder's that their hands are "worth 1 bid if a minimum; worth 2 bids if invitational; and worth whatever it takes if GF".

 

A minimum Responder gets to suggest =a= suit, or bid 1N if they can't suggest a suit at the one level.

After that, a minimum Responder's only options are

a= passing if We are in a reasonable spot, or

b= choosing one of the other strains already suggested by the partnership.

c= making their one suit suggestion at the 2 level if they've limited their hand by bidding 1N first. (when I teach Lebensohl and Good/Bad 2N to more advanced players than novices, I come back to this as an underlying principle)

 

Playing natural SA, once novices learn the above, they do not have to memorize any sequences, they know exactly what to do with a minimum response no matter what Opener does when Opener does not make forcing bids.

The other way of teaching each sequence as a "stand alone" that needs to be memorized is horrible to contemplate.

 

Not to mention the typical novice's reaction to sequences that would be murky if 1m-1M;1N-2lower was nf.

 

Between the two issues, novices would drop out of Bridge at an even greater rate than they already do.

 

 

Besides the flaws in logic of the other approach that I've already pointed out, and despite the documentation contradicting the other approach I've already pointed out, here's another thing that is wrong with the idea that 1m-1M;1N-2lower natural is nf:

 

*If Responder's 2nd round jumps are GF and Stephen's POV is true, then We risk missing game more often than having 1m-1M;1N-2lower being forcing would.*

 

Minimum's just want to find a decent spot. Any decent spot. It doesn't have to be perfect.

 

OTOH, Invitational hands care much more about how well the hands fit because if they do, then We might belong in Game. Remember We teach SA novices not to add non HCP assets to the value of the Dummy hand until =after= a fit has been found.

 

Allowing a minimum hand more sequences to find a good spot at the expense of reducing the number of sequences an Invitational hand has available to probe for game is nonsensical.

 

(...and I'm well aware of the MP theory that says never invite, just decide and "pass or blast". Even if one agrees with it, that is not even close to appropriate as a teaching model for beginners.)

 

 

A more tricky issue is if

1♥-1♠;1N-2m

and

1♦-1M;1N-2♣

 

are canape or longest suit first. Here, beginners are taught it is canape but that may apply only in the context of a 4-cards-up-the-line system.

In SA, novices are taught to Open and Respond Longest Suit First and Up The Line w/ 44.

 

Therefore the above Responders are 54 or 55 in the 2 suits shown.

 

 

...oh, and in SA, opener's 1N rebid shows 12-14 balanced or 12-15 unbalanced (and misfitting).

 

This is in keeping with the SA teaching that it takes

a= 26 playing points w/o a fit, or

b= 25 playing points w/ a fit

for 4M or 3N to be odds on; and

c= ~27-28 playing points with a fit for 5m to be odds on

[foo]

QUOTE]...and I'll continue to do whatever I can to teach people who do listen how to beat those like you who don't

 

So your students will have no problem beating up on Justin and mikeh.

 

ROFLSHWMP.

 

Peter

Justin and mikeh aren't under discussion here.

 

If one persists in being illogical in their approach to Bridge; then yes, more logical novices are going to catch up to them and ultimately surpass them.

 

That's one of the reasons why some people never get any better past a certain point.

[pbleighton]

Justin and mikeh aren't under discussion here.

 

If one persists in being illogical in their approach to Bridge; then yes, more logical novices are going to catch up to them and ultimately surpass them.

 

That's one of the reasons why some people never get any better past a certain point.

 

Ahem.

 

You said

 

If you don't want to accept better practice, that's your choice.

 

...and I'll continue to do whatever I can to teach people who do listen how to beat those like you who don't.

 

Justin, mikeh, and some other excelllent players refuse to *listen* to you. Therefore your students can beat them.

 

What's wrong with this logic?

 

Refusing to beleive your pronouncements isn't the same thing as being illogical.

 

...and of course, there's always the fact that some around here are volatile enough that I'm _very_ glad to not have to risk personally confronting them.

 

Not to worry :)

 

I'm quite harmless.

 

Peter

[helene_t]

One of the things this thread is really driving home to me is how unused to playing "natural" SA most players are.  Gadgets get added so fast and played so exclusively that people evidently forget what their true overall effect is on SA.

 

When teaching beginners (at anything), it is important to make things as logically consistent as possible and to have as few exceptions or contradictions to overall principles as possible.

 

Thus we teach Responder's that their hands are "worth 1 bid if a minimum; worth 2 bids if invitational; and worth whatever it takes if GF".

If you have found a unifying principles behind the myriad of add-hoc choices made in SAYC, congratulations. I don't think anyone has done that before.

 

Without transfers, we play weak t/o opposite a 1NT opening. Strong and invitational hands either jump or (after we have learned about Stayman) go via Stayman. So one could argue that it would be "logical" if

1m-1♠

1N-2♥

is weak, and strong(er) hands either jump or, as soon as we have learned about NMF, use NMF. Besides,

1M-1N

2m

is either weak or invitational, and maybe it would be "logical" to treat responder's rebid over opener's 1N rebid in the same way. Or maybe it would be "logical" to use transfer checkback as soon as we have learned about Jacoby transfers.

 

Btw, without transfers, forcing hands with a 5+-card M jump opposite a 1NT opening while invitational hands go via Stayman. For some reason,

1N-3m

is invitational in SAYC (it is forcing over here). Not sure if that would also apply before Jacoby transfers are introduced. Anyway, in Bergens books even

1m-1♥

1N-2♠

is non-forcing, since the "logic" he exposes his beginners to is that all strong hands go via NMF.

 

I'm not saying that your particular ideas about what is "logical" are worse than so many other people's ideas, just that you shouldn't assume that your way of making SA sound "logical" is the only way.

[goobers]

omg can this thread die? Responder's rebid after 1N in standard is absolutely NF. One reference that wasn't cited was Richard Pavlicek (www.rpbridge.com) who clearly also teaches that a new suit by responder after opener's 1N rebid is NF...

 

And how can there even be a discussion whether

 

1C - 1S

1N - 2H

 

is forcing or not?

[Stephen Tu]

One of the things this thread is really driving home to me is how unused to playing "natural" SA most players are. Gadgets get added so fast and played so exclusively that people evidently forget what their true overall effect is on SA.

 

Gadgets have nothing to do with what you are arguing for (2 new suit forcing after 1nt rebid). This is a natural bid either way, there is no logical reason why forcing is more "natural" than non-forcing. It's a question of which meaning has greater utility. The argument for non-forcing I have already made clearly, it's that you hold far more hands that want to stay safely at the 2 level than ones that want to make a delicate invitation.

 

When teaching beginners (at anything), it is important to make things as logically consistent as possible and to have as few exceptions or contradictions to overall principles as possible.

Sure. And if teaching beginners as simply as possible, say stayman as the only gadget, one teaches that 1nt-2d/2h/2s are natural signoffs. It's logically consistent with that to have 2 of a suit also be natural signoff after a limited 1nt rebid which after all is in principle the same as a 1nt opening just weaker (if playing str nt as normal in America), and denying 4cd support for responder's first bid suit.

 

Thus we teach Responder's that their hands are "worth 1 bid if a minimum; worth 2 bids if invitational; and worth whatever it takes if GF".

 

Who the hell is teaching this? Only you. There are tons of minimum hands that are worth 2 bids. Often with a minimum, responder must bid again to reach the best partial.

 

The principle that *should* be espoused is that minimum hands should make non-forcing bids or pass the 2nd round (if opener didn't reverse/jump shift). NF bids are 1nt, rebid your suit cheaply, raise or take preference for partner's 1st suit, AND new suit if partner's rebid was 1nt.

 

It is possible to argue that well, new suits are usually forcing & I don't want to teach exceptions to that. But the problem is that hardly anyone on earth plays that way after the 1nt rebid except you, so if your pupils go out into the wild they'll be unprepared for their partners dropping them in the presumed forcing bid. Not to mention they'll keep on making their partners go down in 3H when they could have made 2H if they just passed it, and getting their partners pissed at them. NF is a clearly superior treatment, and I don't think it's that hard to remember one exception to new suit forcing, so you might as well teach them the normal way.

 

*If Responder's 2nd round jumps are GF and Stephen's POV is true, then We risk missing game more often than having 1m-1M;1N-2lower being forcing would.*

 

Minimum's just want to find a decent spot. Any decent spot. It doesn't have to be perfect.

 

You want 2H to be forcing so you can bid all your games. Apparently you are content to stay in 1nt even if responder is 5-5, or play responder's major in a 5-2 even though a safer 8 or 9 cd fit is available in the other strain. I will guarantee you will lose many more MP/IMPs doing this than those lost by not getting to game on the worse invitational hands that you choose to signoff rather than to GF.

 

OTOH, Invitational hands care much more about how well the hands fit because if they do, then We might belong in Game. Remember We teach SA novices not to add non HCP assets to the value of the Dummy hand until =after= a fit has been found.

 

It is not as critical when the other hand is known to be balanced & within a tight range of HCP. It is known that opener has at least partial fit with both suits. In practice you still have to invite based on HCP here.

 

Allowing a minimum hand more sequences to find a good spot at the expense of reducing the number of sequences an Invitational hand has available to probe for game is nonsensical.

Only in your mind. Frequency matters! If the invitational hand is very rare, and the minimum hands are very frequent, even if the gain on the invitational hand happens to be larger, you gain more net MP/IMPs playing NF.

 

If one persists in being illogical in their approach to Bridge; then yes, more logical novices are going to catch up to them and ultimately surpass them.

Foo, your "logic" makes no sense to anyone here except yourself. I suppose you think we are all illogical, me especially, & therefore players must be surpassing me left & right ... OOOOKKK ...

[jdonn]

That's one of the reasons why some people never get any better past a certain point.

I've never met anyone like that, nope