Continuations after a 2/1

[kenrexford]

Rather than ... agree on some basic principles.

 

Anyone who denigrates mainstream bidding by calling it silly has problems!

 

...

Mike, I think you are missing something.

 

You started out by commenting about how a boid like a jump to 3♠ would not be understood without discussion. I commented that the solution is not to bid what partner will understand without discussion but to discuss the situation so that this does not happen.

 

The "mainstream" stuff is in that context. If we assume a set of default 2/1 meanings that will arise without discussion, which is apparently necessary, then we end up with a 2/1 structure where...

 

1. Several bids have no meaning, or, if a meaning does exist, it is deemed to obscure to actually use, and hence without useful meaning

 

2. Several sequences have disputed meanings (lawrence, or hardy, or something else), which renders the situation without discussion equally meaningless\

 

3. Default, no discussion 2/1 GF assumes certain principles that are hopelessly uncertain and not ideal

 

When I see no-discussion 2/1 bidding in real life, and compare it with any number of 2/1 sequences with any number of my (different style) partners, a reality exists.

 

My sequences with my discussion-partners go like this. Bid-bid-bid-fit. Then, maybe a small tank. Then, cue-cue-cue-cue-cue. Then, maybe another small tank. Decision.

 

The auctions I see with Stumble Bunny 2/1 (yes, even in Flight A with the top-tier pairs/teams) go like this. Bid-bid-bid-fit. Small tank, cue. Larger tank, cue. Painful hesitation, cue. Wriggle in seat, cue. That's ignoring the frequent way-back wriggle-in-seat decision as to how high to show the fit (how much fast arrival).

 

I'm not saying that the hesitations are unethical. I'm saying that they are a result of having no earthly ideal what should happen next. I'm also not saying that people are taking advantage of the hesitations (profitably -- look at the scores). But, it is nearly impossible to not notice your partner's sweat factor.

[kenrexford]

Here's a test, by the way, that may "prove" my hypothesis that mainstream 2/1 inherently involves hesitations and uncertainties.

 

Answer the hidden question. However, when you answer it, time how long it takes for you to make your response.

 

Question:

 

 

In mainstream 2/1, what is the difference between these two auctions? 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-P-3♣ and 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-P-4♥? In other words, how is showing pattern by bidding the fragment different from showing pattern by jumping in the short suit?

 

 

Did you KNOW the answer? How long did you have to think before reaching a conclusion? How comfortable are you that your interpretation will be the same as partner's?

[y66]

Stumblebunny 2/1? I think they should have a checkbox for this on convention cards (check here if you have not discussed continuations).

 

For 1S 2C 2X 3S I first learned to play what Gerben suggests which is also what Mike Lawrence suggests. Then I learned from a local teaching pro to play 3S as I have 3+ spades, a real club suit, and a hand that's interested or at least willing to look for slam, what do you think? I like this because 2C is often ambiguous, esp. if not playing Fred's Improved 2/1. But I have no idea which approach is better.

 

Agree with Ken that the discussion is everything. I thought that was his main point.

 

Also agree with Adam about which agreements are somewhat mainstream and which ones aren't.

[mikeh]

Here's a test, by the way, that may "prove" my hypothesis that mainstream 2/1 inherently involves hesitations and uncertainties.

 

Answer the hidden question. However, when you answer it, time how long it takes for you to make your response.

 

Question:

 

 

In mainstream 2/1, what is the difference between these two auctions? 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-P-3♣ and 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-P-4♥? In other words, how is showing pattern by bidding the fragment different from showing pattern by jumping in the short suit?

 

 

Did you KNOW the answer? How long did you have to think before reaching a conclusion? How comfortable are you that your interpretation will be the same as partner's?

1. mainstream 2/1 is a large tent with many permissible options sheltered in it. No-one ever says any different. Give me your method, and I will come up with an auction that you haven't considered... I say this with utmost confidence, since I have played in a partnership that had 175 pages of closely spaced notes with charts that compressed many pages of notes into a mere half-page, and we still occcasionally came across sequences we had not discussed... take a training session from Kokish, and he'll do the same to you!

 

2. Your example was easy, for me at least, and I would be reasonably comfortable that my partners would be on the same wavelength. That is not to say that I would expect all 2/1 players to agree or to agree without a lot of thought.. but so what?

 

BTW, for me the 3♣ bid would involve clubs in the slam hunt, while the splinter would involve only spades.. frankly, that seems trivial.. thus the splinter would typically be 6=1=4=2 while the fragment would be 5=1=4=3. Furthermore the splinter would positively announce slam interest, while the fragment would simply be moving the auction along in case partner were interested (altho it would not deny strong slam interest).

[kenrexford]

Here's a test

1. mainstream 2/1 is a large tent with many permissible options sheltered in it. No-one ever says any different. Give me your method, and I will come up with an auction that you haven't considered... I say this with utmost confidence, since I have played in a partnership that had 175 pages of closely spaced notes with charts that compressed many pages of notes into a mere half-page, and we still occcasionally came across sequences we had not discussed... take a training session from Kokish, and he'll do the same to you!

 

2. Your example was easy, for me at least, and I would be reasonably comfortable that my partners would be on the same wavelength. That is not to say that I would expect all 2/1 players to agree or to agree without a lot of thought.. but so what?

 

BTW, for me the 3♣ bid would involve clubs in the slam hunt, while the splinter would involve only spades.. frankly, that seems trivial.. thus the splinter would typically be 6=1=4=2 while the fragment would be 5=1=4=3. Furthermore the splinter would positively announce slam interest, while the fragment would simply be moving the auction along in case partner were interested (altho it would not deny strong slam interest).

Mike, your objection was to avoid something that partner would not understand, without discussion. My point was to discuss and alleviate that problem. When I then gave you a sample hand, you conceded that "mainstream 2/1 is a large tent with many permissible options sheltered in it," that you are only "reasonable comfortable" that partner would be "on the same wavelength" with you, that some 2/1 players might not agree, that many might agree after considerable thought, and that your own interpretation is some vague reference to focus.

 

Then you dismiss this as a meaningless problem with a "so what?"

 

Your arguments make my point well.

 

"Stumblebunny 2/1" means a set of calls after a GF is established where partners need to be on wavelengths as to which tent partner might be under.

 

"Rexford 2/1" is a system where calls after a GF is established have agreed definitions.

[Stephen Tu]

Of course in an advanced established partnership you go discuss more sequences and optimize some going away from mainstream practice on some of them. But as a practical matter it's far better to learn Mike Lawrence 2/1 than to learn Ken Rexford 2/1, if only because probably at least 200x more people have read Lawrence's book than Ken's. More people are going to be willing to play with you & you don't need 3+ hours of system discussion before you start the game. Recommending Rexford 2/1 to a player like Jillybean looking for basic introductory info is a disservice IMO, you pretty much have to learn the mainstream agreements so you understand what your opponents are doing & to get good partners. Once you are an advanced long term partnership then you can look into alternate systems & treatments when you feel the need to optimize your constructive bidding.

 

Some of these sequences come up like once every 2 sessions, maybe less, and then only a fraction of them would really lead to different end results from playing a super-optimized version vs. so-called "stumblebunny". If you have half-way reasonable agreements for 2s/3s/4s (and don't jump to 4s on any min), you are already ahead of a lot of the field.

[kenrexford]

Fair point, Stephen. One with which I agree. On the spectrum of options, I personally would view:

 

Stumble-Bunny 2/1 GF = 2 of a possible 10

Lawrence discussed and fully adopted = 9 of a possible 10

[orlam]

Here's a test, by the way, that may "prove" my hypothesis that mainstream 2/1 inherently involves hesitations and uncertainties.

 

Answer the hidden question. However, when you answer it, time how long it takes for you to make your response.

 

Question:

 

 

In mainstream 2/1, what is the difference between these two auctions? 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-P-3♣ and 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-P-4♥? In other words, how is showing pattern by bidding the fragment different from showing pattern by jumping in the short suit?

 

 

Did you KNOW the answer? How long did you have to think before reaching a conclusion? How comfortable are you that your interpretation will be the same as partner's?

Splinter shows a minimal GF, 3♣ is unlimited. The splinter can be 6142, whereas 3♣ promises 3 clubs.

 

What was your point again? That there are sequences in "standard 2/1" that you have to discuss with partner?

[kenrexford]

What was your point again? That there are sequences in "standard 2/1" that you have to discuss with partner?

Precisely.

 

As "proof" of my point, though, somewhere not too long ago on this site there was a huge debate about the difference in these two sequences, with most not knowing the "answer."

 

Hence, discussion is critical.

 

Not doing something because it requires discussion is weird.

[glen]

However this is far more than discussion:

... After the 2♠ raise, Opener could:

 

2NT = trump denial cue (says nothing except that Opener has fewer than two of the top three honors in spades); this is a modification of Belladonna's idea (hinted at earlier).  All other cues or other actions, therefore, promise two of the top three honors in trumps.

 

3♣ = (2/3 trumps)+one of the top three clubs(partner's suit)

3♦ = (2/3 trumps) but NOT one of the top three clubs(partner's suit), but WITH a diamond control(unbid suit)

3♥ = (2/3 trumps), NOT a club card, NOT a diamond control, but with two of the top three hearts(Opener's own suit)

3♠ = (2/3 trumps), no club card, no diamond card, hearts worse than 2/3

3NT = Picture (good trumps, no heart control, stiff in 4th suit -- diamonds -- two of top three of partner's suit, clubs); or other treatment is TO PLAY (suggestion).  Note that latter looks like stiff club, two of top three diamonds, good trumps, great hearts, at least sort of, and hence an "inverted" other treatment hand.

4♣ = Picture (stiff club, good trumps, great hearts, no diamond control or shortness)

4♦ = Picture (stiff diamond, no club control or shortness, geart hearts, good trumps)

4♥ = Picture (no club control or shortness, no diamond control or shortness, good trumps, great hearts)

4♠ = either 6511 with good trumps/great hearts; or other treatment is simple TOTAL, EMBARASSING BUST with worse than (2 with the Queen) and probably should not have opened.

This would take quite some time for a partnership to be comfortable with. Contrast this to the simple meta-agreements proposed by others, which just require some discussion.

 

Not doing something because it would require hours of prep work is not weird.

[kenrexford]

However this is far more than discussion:

... After the 2♠ raise, Opener could:

 

2NT = trump denial cue (says nothing except that Opener has fewer than two of the top three honors in spades); this is a modification of Belladonna's idea (hinted at earlier).  All other cues or other actions, therefore, promise two of the top three honors in trumps.

 

3♣ = (2/3 trumps)+one of the top three clubs(partner's suit)

3♦ = (2/3 trumps) but NOT one of the top three clubs(partner's suit), but WITH a diamond control(unbid suit)

3♥ = (2/3 trumps), NOT a club card, NOT a diamond control, but with two of the top three hearts(Opener's own suit)

3♠ = (2/3 trumps), no club card, no diamond card, hearts worse than 2/3

3NT = Picture (good trumps, no heart control, stiff in 4th suit -- diamonds -- two of top three of partner's suit, clubs); or other treatment is TO PLAY (suggestion).  Note that latter looks like stiff club, two of top three diamonds, good trumps, great hearts, at least sort of, and hence an "inverted" other treatment hand.

4♣ = Picture (stiff club, good trumps, great hearts, no diamond control or shortness)

4♦ = Picture (stiff diamond, no club control or shortness, geart hearts, good trumps)

4♥ = Picture (no club control or shortness, no diamond control or shortness, good trumps, great hearts)

4♠ = either 6511 with good trumps/great hearts; or other treatment is simple TOTAL, EMBARASSING BUST with worse than (2 with the Queen) and probably should not have opened.

This would take quite some time for a partnership to be comfortable with. Contrast this to the simple meta-agreements proposed by others, which just require some discussion.

 

Not doing something because it would require hours of prep work is not weird.

Ah, but the actual call at issue, way back, was the specific call of 3♠ in a specific auction:

 

1♠-P-2♣-P-

2♥-P-3♠

 

That's a simple meta-agreement to reach:

 

"If the non-jump is (game-)forcing and natural, then the jump in that strain (below game?) is a splinter."

 

In fact, I would suggest that NOT treating 3♠ in this sequence as a splinter is actually an exception to most people's general default, with the exception arising because of experience with partners missing splinters into suit they have already bid.