2/1Gitleman

[kenrexford]

[good analysis by Justin]

I agree with much that you have said.

 

Objective analysis was constantly a problem. I had editors and friend monitor me to make sure that my self-monitoring was not errant, or at least to minimize that.

 

I also agree that there are multiple tiers of bidding possibilities. What seems prevalent is under-developed theory generally. As it pertains to shape-versus cues after the 2-L fit establishment, I agree wholeheartedly that defining the picture jumps and establishing good rules and inferences might well work wonders. The reality is that not many do this, such that it is difficult to compare the A-level of my style with the B-level of the shape auction, and perhaps unfair. I would welcome that debate, and I would be pleased to lose it. It would be wonderful to see that style developed as deeply as I developed the Belladonna style.

 

I would love that bidders' challenge. Let me know when someone develops the patterning style well enough and wants that challenge. :)

 

Finally, I know that you gave a fair read and a fair analysis to my thoughts. You would. I bet you could even argue some of my suggestions better than I could, and counter them fairly with some improvements. I bet you could even guess competently as to what changes I have made with my regular (usually competent and talented, finally) partner.

[kenrexford]

I'm thinking Mark Wahlberg for the movie.

[Stephen Tu]

[Fred apparently used his admin powers to hijack my post, below is edited to make it clearer who wrote what]

 

Fred:

I claim that listening to players who are much more successful then you tends to be a good thing to do.

 

Stephen:

Who would disagree with this?  Yet somehow when I ask better players for their opinion on a bid, play line, treatment, if I do not already understand the logical reasoning behind their choice, they are able to explain it to me.  They don't resort to "I'm a star, that's why I'm right" as an explanation,

 

Fred:

You have been disagreeing with this (or you have not been reading my posts because that is essentially all I have been saying).

 

And I did not retort to "I'm a star, that's why I'm right". First of all I never claimed that I was "right" - actually I have said repeatedly "I could be wrong". Second, my personal star status did not come into play - it was the combined weight of many (all?) stars that I find to be compelling in this case.

 

I believe I explicitly said something like "If this was just me vs. Ken I would like his chances a lot better" - this is not about me.

 

Stephen:

 

and it makes their opinion infinitely more valuable IMO when they can explain clearly the thinking behind it.  Isn't it valuable to know how experts think, so you can try to apply similar logic in similar situations?  How would it help to know what an expert bid in a certain situation, if you yourself have no idea why he did so?  Shouldn't you ask him why, and shouldn't he be able to explain it?

 

 

Of course, but if the best he can do is "sorry I can't explain it, but my experience and judgment suggests blah", then blah still has value. And the more stars who say blah, the more likely it is that blah is true.

Stephen:

 

If it's truly impossible for you to evaluate an idea based on logic (which I think should be extremely rare), and you ask the better players and they also cannot offer firm logical reasoning behind their stance, then I think they shouldn't feel so strongly about it and be open to the idea that some other way might be better.  If an idea truly stinks, it should be very easy to expose the logical flaw(s) in it, not "impossible or impractical".  If it is unclear, the expert  I feel should say "Don't know, haven't really done in depth research/thought into it, but everyone does it the other way so I go along with them", rather than "everyone does it the other way, so this is probably absurd though I can't explain why".

 

 

Well I happen to think that it would be either impossible or impractical to answer this question by logic alone. It would be like trying to prove that 4-card majors is better than 5-card majors or vice versa. Good luck trying to prove things like this.

 

Of course you should feel free to try. I consider myself fortunate that I have better things to do with my life (and better ways to spend whatever time I have for bridge).

 

Stephen:

 

Justin actually read Ken's book, he can make arguments directly on the merits (and wrote review of said book in the big book review thread in the general forum), I give those comments a ton more weight.  Even though you have better credentials than he or anyone else here.

 

 

I agree - I would give considerably more weight to Justin's opinions about Ken's ideas than my own opinions (but only because I know he is a very good player - if he was an intermediate player who read Ken's book I really would not care what he thought of the merit of Ken's ideas).

 

But if you had been paying attention you will have noticed that I have not offered any opinions on the merits of Ken's work. Since I have not read his book I have no opinions. All I have said is that my instincts suggest it is clearly best to show pattern in these auctions, that I would expect almost all of my peers to agree, and that this means something.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Edited January 11, 2008 by Stephen Tu

[inquiry]

If any two sides in the cue-bid versus the shape-out group would like to hammer this out in a bidding contest, I am willing to gather 24 hands that the auction should go 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ on in a game force manner.... we can set up two partnership bidding tables and let them each bid them. (BTW, we know fred is too busy for this, we want him programming not wasting time on such nonsense...so someone else will have to stand up for the shape out folks).

 

We would of course have to agree on what the 2♠ auctions show. Are "jacoby 2NT" hands out? (no 2NT immediately) meaning basically a five card suit for clubs? Can responder also have 4♥'s and take preference back to 2♠ on three to an honor? Etc. But once we set the requirements, I can easily harvest many, many such hands from ancient BRBR archives for use in the bidding rooms.

 

As an aside, here is an interesting auction.. what does 4♣s here mean (no partnership discussion, just what do you think it should mean)?

 

1♠ = 2♣

2♥ = 2♠

4♣ ....

[mike777]

"As an aside, here is an interesting auction.. what does 4♣s here mean (no partnership discussion, just what do you think it should mean)?

 

1♠ = 2♣

2♥ = 2♠

4♣ .... "

 

splinter

 

 

Partner just told me this is what he bids with

 

AKxxx..AKxx...xxx...x

I guess he prefers to pattern out via a splinter as opposed to bidding the 3 card suit.

[pclayton]

If any two sides in the cue-bid versus the shape-out group would like to hammer this out in a bidding contest, I am willing to gather 24 hands that the auction should go 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ on in a game force manner.... we can set up two partnership bidding tables and let them each bid them. (BTW, we know fred is too busy for this, we want him programming not wasting time on such nonsense...so someone else will have to stand up for the shape out folks).

 

We would of course have to agree on what the 2♠ auctions show. Are "jacoby 2NT" hands out? (no 2NT immediately) meaning basically a five card suit for clubs? Can responder also have 4♥'s and take preference back to 2♠ on three to an honor? Etc. But once we set the requirements, I can easily harvest many, many such hands from ancient BRBR archives for use in the bidding rooms.

 

As an aside, here is an interesting auction.. what does 4♣s here mean (no partnership discussion, just what do you think it should mean)?

 

1♠ = 2♣

2♥ = 2♠

4♣ ....

Well, I would take it as similar to what we discussed above - a 6430. Something like: KJxxxx, AKxx, QJx, void

[fred]

[Fred apparently used his admin powers to hijack my post, below is edited to make it clearer who wrote what]

My apologies - I must have clicked "edit" instead of "quote" by mistake.

 

I would never intentionally edit a post made by another person.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

My gripe is not so much with the concept.  I myself would have doubts with the idea of investing much time into theory proposed by an unknown.  The gripe is with someone who has credentials making evaluations of my "pet" theory with apparent ignorance and with obvious B-level theory himself.  I have received enough credentialled praise that I can easily endure competent credentialled criticism.  But incompetent, even if credentialled, criticism in the form of an ad hominem attack pisses me off.

Well your gripe is not justified since I did not evaluate your pet theory. I evaluated (in a completely unscientific way) the chances of it being better than the conventional wisdom (no pun intended) in this area. I said that my judgment suggests that cuebidding at low levels is not as effective as pattern bidding, but I have also stated (repeatedly) that my judgment could easily be wrong.

 

I have not insulted you the way you insulted me in the post I quoted. All I have said about you is that you are a relatively unknown player who has, to the best of my knowledge, had no significant tournament successes. These are facts, not insults, and I am sure you agree with them.

 

As I have said (repeatedly) these facts do not mean that your pet theory is necessarily a bad one or that they necessarily make you a B-level bidding theorist (to borrow your insult).

 

It is entirely possible that your lack of significant tournament successes can be attributed to geography or circumstances as you suggest. It is also possible that you simply don't play very well, that you are a terrible partner, that your pet bidding theories would be too much of a burden for anyone to play effectively, or that they don't work at all.

 

I don't know the real reasons why you have never won anything and frankly I don't think it matters what excuse you have for your lack of success as a player.

 

This thread was started by a person who is apparently not an expert at 2/1 bidding who was looking for some good practical advice. Because my name happened to appear in the subject line, I thought it would be nice for me to post my thoughts.

 

Meanwhile you felt the need to post some advice that I consider completely impractical for the player in question, regardless of the merits of your theories. Then you got all bent of shape because I had the gall to suggest that, if one cannot figure out something for themselves, they rate to be better served by putting their trust in the entire community of leading players rather than some random guy.

 

Sorry that you happened to be that random guy and that you took it so personally. It was not my intention to insult either you or your theories.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Stephen Tu]

[On listening to successful players]:

You have been disagreeing with this

 

No, I have not. I never disagreed on listening to successful players, never suggested that one shouldn't listen to successful players. Where we apparently disagree is on why to listen to successful players, and whether to accept their opinions as gospel even if they can't explain them and offer no reasoning. I listen to them because they are usually the ones who are best at presenting good logical arguments. To me, credentials are only a criterion for deciding whom to ask, but not for deciding whether to end up agreeing with them -- I use the strength of their logic for that, in areas where logic can be brought to bear. You apparently accept credentials alone without a logical explanation where I do not, and also don't care what people without credentials think even if they are capable of presenting a strong logical case. I feel my approach to listening is better, because strong players are capable of being wrong/having blind spots (and if they can't come up with a compelling argument other than "most experts do this", even though they are still often right, they are much more likely to be wrong in such an area, than in an area where they do present strong reasoning), and because if an unknown/maybe weak player can present a strong case, it is possible their idea is worthwhile even though they aren't national champion caliber.

 

Basically there are areas in bridge where I think expert experience/judgment is a good indicator for what to do, stuff like "do I double or bid 5 over 5 here?", "balance on this hand?", basically pure judgment issues. Really the answers here are statistical in nature, but hard to model on a computer because of difficulties in setting up constraints and sometimes also uncertainty over future developments. (Or perhaps just a computer isn't on hand and you want an answer). The expert makes a judgment based on experience, and their guesses over what works best statistically tend to be much more accurate than those of lesser players.

 

But on things like bidding styles & treatments, I don't think expert experience/consensus (rather than logical reasoning) is anywhere near as reliable, since it is tainted by inertia/groupthink. Some areas of bidding like this one, when the auction just doesn't come up frequently, I don't think can be assumed to be thoroughly explored/optimized. After all when you are playing the same methods as everyone, you bid the same way, get same result, you aren't losing anything to them; whether to get to slam/miss slam was just a guess right? But maybe another method could make it not a guess. It is quite possible that the frequency of this auction and possible gains just make it not worth spending time optimizing here, just going along with consensus is a better use of time, but if that is the case why not just say so, without also implying that something different is very probably inferior/absurd?

 

First of all I never claimed that I was "right" - actually I have said repeatedly "I could be wrong"

 

When you say that "I could be wrong", but then immediately follow with "all the experts including me think you are wrong, the odds are heavily in favor of you being wrong", it undermines your initial statement. Maybe you didn't claim that you are 100% right with 0% probability of being wrong, but your posts come across to me as a claim that you are 99+% sure you are right. Which I interpret as claiming you are right.

 

Well I happen to think that it would be either impossible or impractical to answer this question by logic alone. It would be like trying to prove that 4-card majors is better than 5-card majors or vice versa. Good luck trying to prove things like this.

 

If you feel this is on par w/ 4 vs 5 cM, then why such a strong opinion about it? Just say "answer is unknown, I don't think it's worth the time to figure it out, thus suggest to play what all the experts play", rather than also including all the insinuations (unnecessary & unwarranted IMO) about inferiority/absurdity?

[dburn]

Why not play pattern-showing and cue-bidding and keep 3NT in the picture? You have lots of space, after all. Off the top of my head after about three minutes' thought:

 

After 1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠

 

2NT "Please start cue-bidding; we are not going to play 3NT"

3♣ 5=4=1=3 or 5=4=2=2 with no club guard; or 5=4=1=3 with a club guard and extra values

3♦ 5=4=3=1

3♥ Five hearts or six spades or both

3♠ 5=4=2=2 with a club guard

3NT 5=4=1=3 with a club guard and a minimum

4 any Anything you like

 

After 3♣, 3♦ asks and 3♥ shows 5=4=1=3 with no club guard, 3♠ shows 5=4=2=2, 3NT shows 5=4=1=3 with a club guard and a maximum.

 

After 3♥, 3♠ asks and the responses are whatever you like.

 

This takes an effort of memory, of course. But once learned, the scheme can be adapted to all three auctions in this family, e.g.

 

After 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠

 

2NT "Please start cue-bidding; we are not going to play 3NT"

3♣ 5=3=4=1 or 5=2=4=2 with no heart guard; or 5=3=4=1 with a heart guard and extra values

3♦ 5=1=4=3

3♥ Five diamonds or six spades or both

3♠ 5=2=4=2 with a heart guard

3NT 5=3=4=1 with a heart guard and a minimum

4 any Anything you like

 

Of course, if you have a hand strong enough that it wants to start cue-bidding even though it has one of the shapes that could be shown otherwise, you can bid 2NT. The inference when you do show your shape is that you don't have enough to want to start cue-bidding.

 

Also, responder does not have to continue to ask you for your shape if he doesn't want to; he can start cue-bidding himself if that's what he feels like doing. Details left as an exercise for the reader - I'm not going to spend another whole three minutes on this.

[jtfanclub]

Couple of things about your interesting analogy.

 

1) I could go up to Tiger Woods and say "Tige, old son, your putting stroke is all wrong.  Sure, I never score less than 120 myself, but I really know all about putting."  What would the reponse be?  (And rightly so).

 

But that's Tiger's field. You can't be a good golfer without having a good stroke. Not only does making golf clubs not make you a better golfer, most expert golfers have never designed a golf club.

 

2) OK, Golf club design.  Perhaps a keen hacker who does not know what good golfers look for in their clubs comes up with a club that is very good for XYZ.  But the top golfers say "But I don't need to do XYZ, I need to do ABC".  Not getting feedback  from an expert golfer has contributed to the poor design.

 

But that's the Catch-22. Absolutely, you need feedback from expert players on things like this. But what if experts refuse to test systems not made by experts?

 

Obviously, there have been exceptions. I don't think CC Wei was a 1-A player, and his system did wonders. But that was because he found himself coach of a team that got to play against the top players. It would be nice if such serendipity wasn't necessary.

 

In this case, this seems simple to me. Inquiry, for example, could find 100 previous cases of hands where the auction tended to go 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠ when playing 2/1. Do bidding only from there- no play, and then compare where they got to different contracts. How long would it take experts to bid 100 non-competitive auctions where the first four bids were known? I'll bet it's less time than Fred has already spent on this thread.

 

Even if Ken's system did turn out better, that wouldn't prove it wasn't too complicated, or an unecessary brain drain. But if it did the same or worse, that would be a strong sign that the system was not superior.

 

I'm just using Ken's case as an example. I haven't read the book, I'm not much of a system designer myself, I don't have a horse in this race. But it would be nice to see bridge improve beyond the fig leaves of 'gadgets'.

[fred]

If you feel this is on par w/ 4 vs 5 cM, then why such a strong opinion about it? Just say "answer is unknown, I don't think it's worth the time to figure it out, thus suggest to play what all the experts play", rather than also including all the insinuations (unnecessary & unwarranted IMO) about inferiority/absurdity?

You just don't get it. Here is the answer to your question. Please read carefully:

 

Because I thought that people might care about what a successful player thinks, based on his judgment and experience.

 

Whatever "insinuations" you think I might have made, they only started after a player with considerably less experience and very likely considerably worse judgment than me, posted that his judgment and experience suggested otherwise.

 

When I pointed out that this person was probably in a minority of 1 and that greatly increased the likelyhood that he was wrong, all hell broke loose.

 

I am sorry but I really have nothing more to say. Either I have not expressed myself clearly (in which case I apologize), you are not paying attenion, you can't stop arguing even when you know you are wrong, or we are just never going to see eye-to-eye on this matter.

 

Regardless I have only so many keystrokes in me each day and I am not going to waste any more of those on this discussion.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[SoTired]

Fascinating thread!

 

One point that nobody has mentioned yet: Judgement is based on experience. Experience is based on the tools and methods used. The vast pool of experts that Fred is referring to who use "pattern" are used to that method. Their judgement is based on that method. They are comfortable with it. They get good results from it. If forced to use Ken's methods, even if it was technically superior, they would probably do poorly for a long time before their judgement caught up to their comfort level.

 

Personal analogy: I take notes with a pen and pad of paper. My daughter takes notes with her laptop. I can argue why my method is best and so can she. But the fact remains, we do it that way because that is what works best for us by experience. That is our comfort level. If her laptop broke and she was forced to use pen and paper, she would probably do a terrible job. Same with me if my pen ran out of ink and I was forced to take notes with a laptop.

[kenrexford]

"As an aside, here is an interesting auction.. what does 4♣s here mean (no partnership discussion, just what do you think it should mean)?

 

1♠ = 2♣

2♥ = 2♠

4♣ .... "

 

splinter

 

 

Partner just told me this is what he bids with

 

AKxxx..AKxx...xxx...x

I guess he prefers to pattern out via a splinter as opposed to bidding the 3 card suit.

Same for me, but ever=so=slightly better hearts expected (three of the top four honors). Everything else same.

[kenrexford]

I'm expecting Fred to not read this, per his claims. However, just to toss it out and be done.

 

You have no apparent recognition of how arrogant and condescending you were. You have no idea of whether I have talent or not. You have not read my book, nor do you know what I propose therein, obviously. Having no knowledge, you cannot possibly have an informed opinion, and yet, you reject the idea outright, publicly advise people regarding why (credentials), all while illustrating that a simple auction for you is undiscussed, by the way. You imply, with statistics like "minority of one" and similar comments that no one of talent endorses the idea, implying thereby that you have consulted credentialed talent who has read the book and considered the ideas and that you have a list of such people rejecting the idea after this due consideration. You cannot or will not provide one simple example of anything suggesting how a problem exists. Instead, you cite the "never heard of him" argument.

 

There are notable "famous" folks who have reviewed the book and the ideas favorably. You can check around if you want. Others have liked some but not all of the suggestions. I expected that. What I prefer is for someone to review the book by reading it rather than reviewing me, especially if you are also under-informed about that latter topic.

[glen]

I will reply in two posts – this post will discuss the lone wolf versus the establishment concern (the crackpot versus the rest of the civilized world etc.). First let me quote from Michael Lewis's MoneyBall

 

Seven years into his literary career, in the 1984 Baseball Abstract, [bill] James formally gave up any hope that baseball insiders would be reasonable.  "When I started writing I thought if I proved X was a stupid thing to do that people would stop doing X" he said.  "I was wrong." …

A full decade after James stopped writing his Abstracts, there were still two fresh opportunities for a team willing to take them to heart.  One was simply to take the knowledge developed by James and other analysts outside the game, and implement it inside the game.  The other was to develop and extend that knowledge.

... The whole point of James was don't be an ape!  Think for yourself along rational lines.  Hypothesize, test against the evidence, never accept that a question has been answered as well as it ever will be.   Don't believe a thing is true just because some famous baseball player says that it is true.

Actually what Bill James faced was not just one famous baseball player, but the combined school of thought about baseball developed over many decades.

 

Here we have a similar situation, the vast expert consensus versus a few “random non-famous” types suggesting possible improvements.

 

I don’t think anybody should feel offended by Fred’s postings here, as he clearly speaks the truth, even though it might not be nice to hear for some. Lone wolves just have to accept they are not running with the pack. In particular:

 

>> Fred is not rejecting the idea on the basis of its merits (or lack of them) – he is dismissing it for an advancing player solely because it is not commonly played in the expert community – this is quite typical with the introduction of new approaches and lone wolves need to accept that it happens all the time - Bill James faced this, and so did those, for another example, who believed in aircraft carriers instead of battleships.

 

>> Fred is not “condescending” when he points out the lone wolves have no proven track record in which to authenticate their ability to discuss these matters. This is simply a reality check. In bridge we have seen quite poor players attempt to pass themselves as world class professionals. I’ve personally seen, nobody in our present company of course, a number of somewhat clueless people write bridge books presented as expert advice.

 

>> Kind and sympathic reviews of an idea (or a set of ideas), in book and article format, are not sufficient to elevate an idea into best-of-class or better-than-the-experts status. It just means that the book or article presented thought provoking ideas in a decently written manner. Endorsement of the ideas arrives when the top players use the ideas.

 

I think it is fair for Fred to have made his comments to the person looking for advice. I also believe those who have taken offence from his comments are out-of-line. While it is disappointing for inventors that Fred has decreased the number of guinea pigs available to try out new ideas, he is giving advancing players good advice to stay on the well-trodden path instead of trampling through the untamed forest.

 

Take an advancing partnership that takes up cuebids as in this thread, and assume that the partnership, at some point, finds themselves unable to reach a good slam on a hand. Afterwards, they consult with a local expert, and guess what they find out – not how to cuebid the hand better, but they are playing the “wrong” methods. If they had used pattern showing methods, and were not able to reach a slam, the expert could provide valuable input into how they could have judged the mesh of values on the hand and suggested a potential sequence to get to the slam. Thus playing the expert consensus methods confers an advantage beyond the method itself.

 

I believe inventors need to leave the taking up of their ideas to the early adopters, who get enjoyment at being the first to try out the very latest. It is a poor service to the bridge community for inventors to present their ideas as mainstream ready when they are just a few years off the drawing board. Instead the inventors need to understand what the current practices are, accept (and relish) their status as lone wolves, and live with the put downs of their ideas simply because they are new. It’s all part and parcel of being a “mad scientist” leading the way.

[glen]

I have the following three problems with the immediate cue approach:

 

1) It seems relatively poor for choice of game, which is a very underrated success factor. It seems one is locked into the major suit game or a higher contract, and one can’t play 3NT, which can be a better place to play.

 

2) It seems poor in the choice of slam strain, as it can’t clearly distinguish the degree of secondary fits.

 

3) It discloses a lot of information on the way to game. In the 80s some local mad scientists were using this approach against us, and had a cuebid bonanza on the way to 4 of their major. We were presented with a roadmap from the opening lead on. Non-disclosure on the way to game is another underrated success factor.

 

However it is not like I’m thrilled with the patterning out approach. To use analogies in this thread, for me picking between immediate cue or patterning out is like deciding whether to hit a 6 or 7 iron on the par 5 tee, or like picking the very best sword to use against the approaching tank.

 

In Hardy 2/1 (blue book) he had the 2M rebid by responder show 12-15 or so, no singleton, and thus places opener in charge of investigation or not. In the evolved style, where 2M covers a wider range of hands, the number one thing the partnership needs to sort out first is do they actually need to explore for slam. Thus some bid must be allocated to opener to show not much extra, and it needs to be something that does not disclose much as opener will play contract in the major. This bid needs to be low enough that responder, with extras, in HCP and/or shape, can show slam interest. However the bidding approach available for responder also needs to be able to offer choice of game.

 

Methods that disclose too much when the partnership doesn’t have the assets for slam are flawed imo, and methods that don’t offer choice of game possibility will be long term underperformers.

[Guest Jlall]

Without trying to offer an opinion on which way is best in this post (even though it's probably well known what my opinion is on the matter), I think I know why it would probably "seem" better to most players (especially experts) who haven't given the matter extremely deep thought that showing pattern on that level is a better idea than cuebidding. Because it gives information that is of more immediate benefit. In other words, if responder had to place the contract after opener's third bid, he could certainly do a better job based on knowing opener's approximate shape then he could by knowing opener's lowest cuebid. This conforms to how humans like to think, in other words they want partner to first give me the information that they care about the most, even if they could be shown that information will always come about eventually.

 

Ken you are letting your emotions cause you to make untrue statements. Fred didn't say people should reject your ideas outright, which is what you seem to claim he is saying. You keep saying things like he hasn't provided one example where it works badly, but he is obviously not trying to show that it definitely works badly. He is just saying that if a player doesn't have either the time or inclination to give an extremely deep and detailed consideration of what approach to use, a large group of experts is more likely to be right than a small group of non-experts. I don't see what is so outrageous about that obviously true claim. It doesn't mean your approach is inferior.

[WrecksVee]

As to pattern showing or cue bidding after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ I decided to see what I could find in bridge literature.

 

Bridge World Standard did not address this as far as my quick scan could determine.

 

Kokish and Kraft's "Modern American Bidding" falls in the pattern camp. But the suggested method is conventional. Opener rebids either third suit at the three level to show shortness. Rebids of 2NT, 3♥,3♠ and 4♠ were reserved for =5=4=2=2 with specific definitions.

 

Steve Robinson's "Washington Standard" 2nd ed. uses cue bidding.

 

Anyone else have any books that have a view on this?

[glen]

Steve Robinson's "Washington Standard" 2nd ed. uses cue bidding.

good spot. I see Robinson uses 2M-3M by opener to show a minimum, while immediate cuebidding shows extras.

[kenrexford]

As always, folks have different preferences as to methods, based upon personal assessments of risk-benefit analysis. This got me to thinking about two variations that seem reasonable and may be worth consideration, for the cuebidding camp.

 

One is a simple change to the impact of a 2NT (poor trumps) cue. One might agree that any cuebidding sequence that includes a 2NT call can end at 3NT. Thus, for instance, consider 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♥-P-2♠. If Opener cues anything but 2NT, the contract would be forced to 4♠ (if game only). However, under the variation, a 2NT call could yield a final contract of 3NT.

 

A second variation, along similar lines, might be to invert the meanings of a Picture Jump to 3NT and a Picture Splinter in partner's second suit. Thus, after 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♥-P-2♠, Opener might jump to 3NT to show a stiff club, good trumps, great hearts, and no diamond control, a call that Responder might actually want to pass. That would make a 4♣ call by Opener instead show good trumps, no heart control, a stiff diamond, and HHx in clubs, a holding where 3NT is very unlikely to be right.

 

A third possibility I have considered is also to invert the meanings of 3NT and 2NT, where 2NT is "serious" and bypassing 2NT "non-serious," or perhaps frivolous and non-frivolous, with 3NT being the "poor trumps" cue. The upside is for those who very highly value non-disclosure when a quantitative bash analysis suggests that slam is remote. The downside is that it negatively impacts the nuances available for delayed picture jumping. But, that itself might be worked out sufficiently.

 

BTW -- Fred and I have made peace. :) Egos do battle, but gentlemen reach accords.

[kenrexford]

The variational scheme has me thinking of a methodology that may appeal to some who have strong feelings about other schemes. One could easily use a blended scheme. Here is how it would work.

 

2NT would be serious. One could play that 2♠ over heart agreement is serious and 2NT a non-serious spade message.

 

That would make 3NT a trump cue. The bidding of three of the agreed major would show good trumps, but that would now mean two of the top three. 3NT would show poor contextual trumps, just like 2NT does in the normal scheme. That would allow the partnership to stop at 3NT with horrifying trumps on occasion. Plus, the entire trump-strength message would be equally transmitted, just later and in a slightly different manner. But, explained.

 

Now, in the blended scheme, one could agree that 2NT, as serious, or 2♠ if using that, initiates cuebidding. One might be "serious" if one wanted to use a cuebidding-first approach because of tactical concerns.

 

The "blended scheme" would involve non-2NT auctions, or 2NT bypasses if you will. In that event, the partnership could use pattern bidding. Explaining yourself as "non-serious" might also be a tactical decision based upon a desire to pattern out on that specific hand. Of course, one would need to establish methods for patterning out, and this could be natural, semi-natural, or completely artificial. For instance, perhaps 3♣ shows a 5431 hand, 3D asking. Maybe 3D shows a 5-5 hand, 3♥ asking for the shortness. Whatever.

 

The idea of the blended scheme is complicated, but it may be of interest and does seem to have some merits.

[fred]

In fairness to Ken I should say that, when I made my original suggestion to the player who started this thread that he bid naturally in this auction and my instincts suggested that "natural" (a more accurate word for describing my preferred style to "pattern") was vastly superior to "cuebidding":

 

The way Ken thinks of "cuebidding" is not exactly what I was referring to.

 

For almost all bridge players "cuebidding" is a much less well-defined and much less well-structured concept than the sort of "cuebidding" that Ken advocates. No doubt Ken's form of "cuebidding" is considerably more effective than the form of "cuebidding" that I would expect an "average player" to use (or be able to use) in an auction like this one.

 

Ken has obviously given a great deal of thought to these matters. While my instincts still suggest that it is better to play "natural" here, it would not surprise me in the least if *something* was better. If I had to guess I would say that neither "natural" nor "Rexford-style-cuebidding" is "best" - probably "best" is that 2S starts a pure relay sequence, but responder has ways to break the relay if his hand is more suitable for a cuebid, a natural bid, or some specific asking bid the answer to which would not be conveniently forthcoming from the relay. If that is true then I think that "pattern" is probably the first thing that systems designers would try to resolve when defining the relays.

 

I would also guess that "normal cuebidding" is (by far) the worst of all of these alternatives. That was the main point I was trying to make in my original post in this thread.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[y66]

Good thread. Will save this one and discuss these points with fellow intermediate pard:

 

* problems opener faces after 1S 2C : 2H 2S;

* possible alternative solutions (current mainstream expert practice as well as new ideas); and

* tradeoffs between alternative solutions.

 

Haven't seen much discussion along these lines in *any* books on 2/1 and nothing that approaches the level of thoughtfulness (and intensity) in this thread.

 

re: OfficeGlen's Moneyball and Bill James analogy, isn't it incredible to see what Theo Epstein and the Red Sox have done with James' ideas? And I'm a Yankees' fan!

[bhall]

I have the following three problems with the immediate cue approach:

 

1) It seems relatively poor for choice of game, which is a very underrated success factor.  It seems one is locked into the major suit game or a higher contract, and one can’t play 3NT, which can be a better place to play. 

 

2) It seems poor in the choice of slam strain, as it can’t clearly distinguish the degree of secondary fits.

 

3) It discloses a lot of information on the way to game.  In the 80s some local mad scientists were using this approach against us, and had a cuebid bonanza on the way to 4 of their major.  We were presented with a roadmap from the opening lead on.  Non-disclosure on the way to game is another underrated success factor.

 

However it is not like I’m thrilled with the patterning out approach.  To use analogies in this thread, for me picking between immediate cue or patterning out is like deciding whether to hit a 6 or 7 iron on the par 5 tee, or like picking the very best sword to use against the approaching tank.

 

[snip]

 

Methods that disclose too much when the partnership doesn’t have the assets for slam are flawed imo, and methods that don’t offer choice of game possibility will be long term underperformers.

Officeglen has the right of it. And mathematically speaking, there are over a thousand sequences available between 2S and 4S to distinguish 1) both hands minimum; 2) opener minimum, responder extras; 3) opener extras, responder minimum; and 4) both hands extras.

 

It wouldn't be rocket science to arrange for case 1 to concentrate on choice of games, while the others declare early that slam is the object and ask/show according to simple schemes. You can take Ken's work, and his recent comments, as proof that the schemes need not involve some convoluted, impossible-to-remember coding. However, I'll bet that such a scheme would take many years to penetrate the expert community,primarily because there would be a significant memory burden imposed in a situation where the gains would be rather infrequent.

 

Many years ago, I showed (in BW) how to play 6-way game tries over 1M-2M. Today, nobody plays them, not even I.