Which bid should be ambigous?

[benlessard]

I think that if you play a 2/1 scheme after 1S-----2H------???

 

1- 2S is a way better catch all than 2Nt. Not close at all.

 

2- 2S is an economical bid but you cannot wait to have plenty of extras or a full 5-5 to bid 3m.

 

3- 2Nt is often the undersused bid here and I think we shouldnt wait to have full stopper in both m to bid 2Nt. With a 5143 and half a stopper in clubs i much prefer to be able to bid 2Nt if the system permit it.

 

So under these condition ill bid 4C wich is a pick a game punt (4D would be RKC for us and 3M would set trumps)

 

 

Under poster condition ill just bid 3S (if i dont play serious/unserious 3Nt.)

 

Playing serious /unserious 3nt and minorwood ill be a dead duck stuck with 3Nt.

[mike777]

Consider a 2/1 system with the following agreements:

 

a) 2-over-1 is game forcing even if suit is re-bid

B) 1M - 2NT = 3+ support and invitational or 4+ support and GF

c) 1M - 2x; 2NT = 11-13 balanced, 20+ balanced or some unbalanced hands without a better bid available

d) 1M - 2x; 2M = 6+M, 14+

e) 1M - 2x; 3y = (non-jump) 5+M, 4+y, not complete minimum (13+, some slam interest)

g) 1M - 2x; jump = splinter in support of x

h) 1M - 2x; 3y - 4M = picture jump (i.e. not fast arrival)

i) non-serious 3NT when major is agreed

j) cue bid bypassing non-serious 3NT shows stronger slam interest

 

Holding the following hand

 

♠92

♥AKJ95

♦KJ8

♣874

 

you hear partner open 1♠, you bid a game forcing 2♥ and partner bids an at least semi-positive 3♦. Now, it would be nice if 3♥ showed a 6+suit, 3♠ showed 3-card support and 3NT showed a club stopper. However that seem to leave us without a bid.

 

Now for my questions:

 

1. What would you bid with the following hand?

2. If you think that the only reason for being in this difficult position is silly agreements, which agreement would you like to change?

Given constraints I bid 4d np yet.

[mike777]

". If you think that the only reason for being in this difficult position is silly agreements, which agreement would you like to change?"

 

 

If pard can open on junk compared to sound this is not a game forcing hand for me so......1nt over 1s.

[whereagles]

Then again, of course I could be wrong about the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1

If we stick to 2/1 bids only, then it's obvious 2/1 GF is better than 2/1 not GF because the GF variant is more narrowly defined. It cannot be more difficult to bid in this case B)

 

Agree too that the 2M is probably the best place to put a catch-all. In fact, 2/1 not GF does use such a catch-all and works pretty well, despite the wider 2/1 range.

 

2/1 GF has a lot of variants these days, some good, some bad. What we really need is a clear, good standard. Such a standard will probably include the 2M catch-all.

[whereagles]

FWIW, what bad name?

Not my words, actually. Barry Rigal's words, in a bulletin a while ago, where a world class pair went on to a hopeless slam after a 2/1 sequence B)

[gnasher]

I think that 2/1's bad name, if it has one, arises from the difficulty in determining the partnership's combined values.

 

In the SA/Acol auctions 1♠-2♦;3♦ or 1♠-2♦;2♥-3♥, one player has limited his hand. In the corresponding 2/1 auction, both players may (depending on agreements) be unlimited. In 2/1, that may cause us to get too high when we have lots of controls but not enough tricks, or more often to give away free information by cue-bidding or bidding out shape when we didn't need to.

 

These problems can be solved with agreements about how to limit one of the hands, preferably without unnecessary leakage. However, not all partnerships seem willing to put the necessary work in.

[Cascade]

However, not all partnerships seem willing to put the necessary work in.

This is a feature common to all systems.

[whereagles]

I think that 2/1's bad name, if it has one, arises from the difficulty in determining the partnership's combined values.

This is why I designed my own 2/1 GF variant in such a way that it totally mimics 2/1 not GF. I get the ranges all sorted out, so I keep that plus. Other advantages come in auctions such as

 

1M 2x

2y 3M

 

1M 2x

2y 2NT

 

which allow slam tries at a convenient level, with opener already limited (cannot have 18+, else he would have jumped to 3y).

[NickRW]

FWIW, what bad name?

Not my words, actually. Barry Rigal's words, in a bulletin a while ago, where a world class pair went on to a hopeless slam after a 2/1 sequence :D

Well, the only thing I can say about that is that good players, whether world class or not, if they want to actually perform as a good pair have to spend a lot of time hammering out their agreements in the bidding. And this applies whether they play 2/1 or any other system.

 

In other words I don't find this one example as evidence that I shouldn't play 2/1 or that 2/1 should be considered to deserve a bad name.

 

Nick

[whereagles]

What I'm saying is 2/1 not GF has had more development than 2/1 GF, which is why he might get the impression it works better. In theory, 2/1 GF MUST be better. And it WILL be better after it has settled down.

[y66]

For more discussion on 2M = catchall, see this thread. I thought david_c's comments (page 2) were particularly insightful.

[Cascade]

Then again, of course I could be wrong about the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1, but given that almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings, I doubt it.

I am not sure that this actually a true reflection of the current state of systems played by the leading players.

 

Here is a list of the top ten pairs in the datums (butler) in the round robin of the 2007 World Championships in Beijing and the systems they played:

 

Richard FREEMAN - Nick NICKELL 2/1 almost GF

Krzysztof MARTENS - Krzysztof JASSEM Polish Club/Strong Club

Ilan HERBST - Ophir HERBST Acol

Tor HELNESS - Geir HELGEMO System Card does not mention their 2/1 style

Jorgen MOLBERG - Terje AA 2/1 almost GF

Andreas KIRMSE - Michael GROMOELLER Swiss Acol 2/1 9+

Franck MULTON - Pierre ZIMMERMANN 5-card majors variable no trump no mention of 2/1 style

Boguslaw GIERULSKI - Jerzy SKRZYPCZAK Strong NT 2/1 F1

Berry WESTRA - Vincent RAMONDT 2/1 nearly GF

Josef PIEKAREK - Alexander SMIRNOV 2/1 GF

 

Only one pair Piekarek/Smirnov of Germany claim to be playing 2/1 GF and that pair finished 10th on the datums.

 

There are three other pairs playing nearly GF 2/1 methods.

 

I could be wrong but I assume that those that do not say that 2/1 is GF are not playing that method.

 

Otherwise there is a wide variety of systems played by these leading players and other players in the tournament. The almost all top players that Fred claims are playing these superior 2/1 methods did not seem to perform any better than players playing different methods.

 

It seems to me that either those players playing the supposed inferior methods are extremely good or 2/1 GF is not as dominant as some might like to think it is.

[CSGibson]

When I'm bidding with some partners, most bids are ambiguous.

[NickRW]

Actually, when I first learnt Bridge, I gathered that jump shift responses were FG. I misinterpreted this as "you should jump shift with all GF hands" - so they basically became 13+. Which is, overall, a terrible method - but it has some good points!

 

Nick

[fred]

Then again, of course I could be wrong about the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1, but given that almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings, I doubt it.

I am not sure that this actually a true reflection of the current state of systems played by the leading players.

 

Here is a list of the top ten pairs in the datums (butler) in the round robin of the 2007 World Championships in Beijing and the systems they played:

 

Richard FREEMAN - Nick NICKELL 2/1 almost GF

Krzysztof MARTENS - Krzysztof JASSEM Polish Club/Strong Club

Ilan HERBST - Ophir HERBST Acol

Tor HELNESS - Geir HELGEMO System Card does not mention their 2/1 style

Jorgen MOLBERG - Terje AA 2/1 almost GF

Andreas KIRMSE - Michael GROMOELLER Swiss Acol 2/1 9+

Franck MULTON - Pierre ZIMMERMANN 5-card majors variable no trump no mention of 2/1 style

Boguslaw GIERULSKI - Jerzy SKRZYPCZAK Strong NT 2/1 F1

Berry WESTRA - Vincent RAMONDT 2/1 nearly GF

Josef PIEKAREK - Alexander SMIRNOV 2/1 GF

 

Only one pair Piekarek/Smirnov of Germany claim to be playing 2/1 GF and that pair finished 10th on the datums.

 

There are three other pairs playing nearly GF 2/1 methods.

 

I could be wrong but I assume that those that do not say that 2/1 is GF are not playing that method.

 

Otherwise there is a wide variety of systems played by these leading players and other players in the tournament. The almost all top players that Fred claims are playing these superior 2/1 methods did not seem to perform any better than players playing different methods.

 

It seems to me that either those players playing the supposed inferior methods are extremely good or 2/1 GF is not as dominant as some might like to think it is.

Wayne,

 

Note that I was not saying that the system "2/1 GF" is dominant, but that playing game-forcing 2/1s after your own 5-card major openings is dominant.

 

I was careful to mention 5-card majors. As I understand it, pairs who play Acol do not play 5-card majors. I am not sure, but I seem to recall that Helgemo-Helness sometimes open 4-card majors as well.

 

Also, I think the pairs that play "2/1 almost GF" count as 2/1 players - this method, as it is usually played, is a lot closer to 2/1 than it is to "standard". It would be silly to suggest that Nickell-Freeman, for example, are a counterexample to the assertion that I made. For them I suspect that "amost GF" means they can stop in 4 of a minor on a few well-defined auctions.

 

Finally, there are only 10 pairs on your list. If you want confine your list of "leading players" to only 10 pairs, this particular list is not a very good one (since there is only one pair in your list that clearly belongs there and several pairs in your list that clearly do not belong there).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barryallen]

I think 4D is the right call with this hand.

Must confess this is rather surprising to me. I can only mildly understand the bid if you now play that opener's 4M is not a cue but a proposal to play there.

How I play the sequence is not really relevant, because I don't play anywhere close to the same schedule of opener's rebids after 2H that the OP presented.

 

But if you do play, like he does, that 3D doesn't really mean much, then it makes complete sense to me that 4H/4S over 4D are non-forcing. The theory is "game before slam". To me there is a reasonably strong case to play this way even if 3D is more narrowly defined.

 

And you'll still miss a couple 3NTs that are right, opposite, say a 5143 with 15 hcp or so.

 

Not if partner has a club stopper. He should bid 2NT instead of 3D with a hand like that.

 

If partner doesn't have a club stopper then you are right, but we are not going to get to 3NT no matter what I do in that case (unless I bid 3NT myself of course and that is not going to happen).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

That makes a lot of sense. The other point has to be that opener must know the position he is placing partner by the 3♦ bid. Opener has created this situation for what ever reason and we are now forced along with the flow.

 

I would prefer the option of biding 3♥ or 3♠, but would not deviate from our agreement for something opener has deliberately created? Although 3♥ does not look a bad lie?

[aguahombre]

IMO you will often run into problems like this one (among others) unless opener's 3-level reverse is defined as either 5-5 with 2 strong suits or 5-4 with significant extra high card values with a strong 4-card holding in his second suit. This bid should be seen as a statement, not as a question.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

As usual, Fred nails it. And his conclusion that 4D is preferable to 3S with a strong 3-card holding in diamonds and only two small spades, is the logical one.

[Cascade]

Wayne,

 

Note that I was not saying that the system "2/1 GF" is dominant, but that playing game-forcing 2/1s after your own 5-card major openings is dominant.

 

I was careful to mention 5-card majors. As I understand it, pairs who play Acol do not play 5-card majors. I am not sure, but I seem to recall that Helgemo-Helness sometimes open 4-card majors as well.

 

Also, I think the pairs that play "2/1 almost GF" count as 2/1 players - this method, as it is usually played, is a lot closer to 2/1 than it is to "standard". It would be silly to suggest that Nickell-Freeman, for example, are a counterexample to the assertion that I made. For them I suspect that "amost GF" means they can stop in 4 of a minor on a few well-defined auctions.

 

Finally, there are only 10 pairs on your list. If you want confine your list of "leading players" to only 10 pairs, this particular list is not a very good one (since there is only one pair in your list that clearly belongs there and several pairs in your list that clearly do not belong there).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

It seems we understand different things from

 

"almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings"

 

To me this states emphatically that 'almost all' of the top players play or like to play 2/1 GF in 5-card major systems.

 

That is it states both "almost all of today's leading players seem to believe ... in playing 2/1s as GF..." and that the same "all most all ..." play "5-card major systems".

 

Nickell-Freeman are certainly very close to 2/1 GF.

 

I do not want to confine my list to ten pairs. I simply had limited time so chose the top ten finishers in the butler in Beijing without knowing in advance what systems they played. I would be happy to look further down the list. It seemed to me to be an objective way of selecting a sample of the "world's top players". Although I concede not perfect.

[kenrexford]

Wayne,

 

[tsuff]

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

It seems we understand different things from

 

"almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings"

 

To me this states emphatically that 'almost all' of the top players play or like to play 2/1 GF in 5-card major systems.

 

That is it states both "almost all of today's leading players seem to believe ... in playing 2/1s as GF..." and that the same "all most all ..." play "5-card major systems".

 

Nickell-Freeman are certainly very close to 2/1 GF.

 

I do not want to confine my list to ten pairs. I simply had limited time so chose the top ten finishers in the butler in Beijing without knowing in advance what systems they played. I would be happy to look further down the list. It seemed to me to be an objective way of selecting a sample of the "world's top players". Although I concede not perfect.

What?!?!?

 

How can what Fred wrote be interpreted any other way than the following:

 

1. Take the world's leading players.

2. Reduce that list to ones who open 5-card majors

3. The resulting group will have almost all play GF for 2/1 bids.

 

Now, a bit of interpretation can tossed into this. I understood this as people who play a natural approach with five-card majors. Meaning that if the option was 2/1 GF or Standard, 2/1 GF predominates. I understood this as excluding strong clubbers and the like.

 

The interpretation that this meant that almost all people play 2/1 GF, even if you count those who play strong club systems and the like, is crazy. Goofy.

[Cascade]

Wayne,

 

[tsuff]

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

It seems we understand different things from

 

"almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings"

 

To me this states emphatically that 'almost all' of the top players play or like to play 2/1 GF in 5-card major systems.

 

That is it states both "almost all of today's leading players seem to believe ... in playing 2/1s as GF..." and that the same "all most all ..." play "5-card major systems".

 

Nickell-Freeman are certainly very close to 2/1 GF.

 

I do not want to confine my list to ten pairs. I simply had limited time so chose the top ten finishers in the butler in Beijing without knowing in advance what systems they played. I would be happy to look further down the list. It seemed to me to be an objective way of selecting a sample of the "world's top players". Although I concede not perfect.

What?!?!?

 

How can what Fred wrote be interpreted any other way than the following:

 

1. Take the world's leading players.

2. Reduce that list to ones who open 5-card majors

3. The resulting group will have almost all play GF for 2/1 bids.

 

Now, a bit of interpretation can tossed into this. I understood this as people who play a natural approach with five-card majors. Meaning that if the option was 2/1 GF or Standard, 2/1 GF predominates. I understood this as excluding strong clubbers and the like.

 

The interpretation that this meant that almost all people play 2/1 GF, even if you count those who play strong club systems and the like, is crazy. Goofy.

You understanding of logic is clearly different than mine.

 

The phrase at the beginning "almost all of today's leading players" is not qualified in any other way.

 

For Fred's meaning I would have thought a construction like:

 

Almost all of today's leading players who play five-card majors prefer 2/1 GF.

 

Without the qualifier the statement clearly means all of today's leading players both prefer 2/1 GF and play 5-card majors.

 

Say for arguments sake that there are exactly 100 world' leading players. Further assume that 50 play 5-card majors and 50 play some other systems (mostly 4-card majors). And that of those who play 5-card majors 48 (all except one pair) play 2/1 GF.

 

Then the following statement is correct:

 

"48 of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings"

 

and the next statement is incorrect:

 

"almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings" since "48" is not "almost all" of today's leading players that number 100.

[kenrexford]

Wayne,

 

[tsuff]

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

It seems we understand different things from

 

"almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings"

 

To me this states emphatically that 'almost all' of the top players play or like to play 2/1 GF in 5-card major systems.

 

That is it states both "almost all of today's leading players seem to believe ... in playing 2/1s as GF..." and that the same "all most all ..." play "5-card major systems".

 

Nickell-Freeman are certainly very close to 2/1 GF.

 

I do not want to confine my list to ten pairs. I simply had limited time so chose the top ten finishers in the butler in Beijing without knowing in advance what systems they played. I would be happy to look further down the list. It seemed to me to be an objective way of selecting a sample of the "world's top players". Although I concede not perfect.

What?!?!?

 

How can what Fred wrote be interpreted any other way than the following:

 

1. Take the world's leading players.

2. Reduce that list to ones who open 5-card majors

3. The resulting group will have almost all play GF for 2/1 bids.

 

Now, a bit of interpretation can tossed into this. I understood this as people who play a natural approach with five-card majors. Meaning that if the option was 2/1 GF or Standard, 2/1 GF predominates. I understood this as excluding strong clubbers and the like.

 

The interpretation that this meant that almost all people play 2/1 GF, even if you count those who play strong club systems and the like, is crazy. Goofy.

You understanding of logic is clearly different than mine.

 

The phrase at the beginning "almost all of today's leading players" is not qualified in any other way.

 

For Fred's meaning I would have thought a construction like:

 

Almost all of today's leading players who play five-card majors prefer 2/1 GF.

 

Without the qualifier the statement clearly means all of today's leading players both prefer 2/1 GF and play 5-card majors.

 

Say for arguments sake that there are exactly 100 world' leading players. Further assume that 50 play 5-card majors and 50 play some other systems (mostly 4-card majors). And that of those who play 5-card majors 48 (all except one pair) play 2/1 GF.

 

Then the following statement is correct:

 

"48 of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings"

 

and the next statement is incorrect:

 

"almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as GF over their own 5-card major suit openings" since "48" is not "almost all" of today's leading players that number 100.

Since this is funny.

 

OK -- let me toss this one back.

 

Say you take the group of 100 world leading players. Those players probably all play more than one approach. Sometimes, perhaps with their top partner in a top event, they play something sexy. However, when playing with clients, or friends, or whatever, they perhaps sometimes play a system of 5-card majors and otherwise basically natural.

 

In that scenario, I bet that almost all of them play a 2/1 response as GF in response to their 5-card major openings, when they play 5-card major openings.

 

HAH!!! Take that! LOL :)

[Cascade]

Since this is funny.

 

OK -- let me toss this one back.

 

Say you take the group of 100 world leading players. Those players probably all play more than one approach. Sometimes, perhaps with their top partner in a top event, they play something sexy. However, when playing with clients, or friends, or whatever, they perhaps sometimes play a system of 5-card majors and otherwise basically natural.

 

In that scenario, I bet that almost all of them play a 2/1 response as GF in response to their 5-card major openings, when they play 5-card major openings.

 

HAH!!! Take that! LOL :)

Maybe that is what Fred meant.

 

But I don't think so.

 

And I am not sure it is correct but I could be wrong on that.

[hanp]

Since you are both at it, could you give me the names of a few leading pairs that do not play 5-card majors?

[Cascade]

Since you are both at it, could you give me the names of a few leading pairs that do not play 5-card majors?

how many is a few?

 

What is a leading pair?

 

Here are a few pairs from the last world championships. I far from looked at every system card.

 

Helgemo Hellness Norway

Molberg Aa Norway

Hackett Hackett England

Townsend Gold England

Richman Gill Australia

Gromoeller Kirmse Germany

Herbst Herbst Israel

Hamman Compton USA (5-card 1st/2nd)

Blackstock Henry New Zealand

Reid Newell New Zealand

Pazur Zawislak Poland

 

Of those that played five-card majors it didn't seem to me that 2/1 FG was close to universal.

[the hog]

Since you are both at it, could you give me the names of a few leading pairs that do not play 5-card majors?

The Hacket twins, Auken and von Arnim, Helgemo and Helness, Waterlow and Paul Hacket.

Those four pairs came to mind without even thinking hard.

 

By the way, I don't know how you intended your comment, ie whether you were really interested in who didn't play 5 card Ms or whether you were attempting to state that top pairs all played 5 card Ms. If the latter, then this view is incorrect. I also think that both methods have their advantages/disadvantages but that 5 card Ms won the "war" due to familiarity, not because one method is demonstrably superior or inferior. For example, if they were around today, I would put money on the Sharples twins to beat many world class pairs in a bidding competition.