Which bid should be ambigous?

[hanp]

I didn't think that there were that many leading pairs in the world but I guess that's a matter of semantics.

[the hog]

I didn't think that there were that many leading pairs in the world but I guess that's a matter of semantics.

ok, maybe you can remove Waterlow and hacket from that list, but I don't think you can quibble with the others. The twins would be on anyone's list of the top 20 prs in the world; Arnim von Auken are arguably the best women pair in the world, and Helgemo can lay claims to being one of the top 5 men players.

Isn't that true?

[hanp]

I didn't mean your list Ron, but Wayne's. I wouldn't call all the pairs who play in the Bermuda Bowl leading pairs. But obviously there are also a few of the truly great players who prefer to play 4-card majors.

 

Of course Hamman has played 4-card majors for a long time but mentioning Hamman-Compton as one of the pairs because they can open a 4-card major in third seat is a complete joke.

 

I also think that very few things in bridge are demonstrably superior or inferior. I would not dare to imply that 4-card majors are inferior as I don't have that much experience playing them. I was thinking along with Wayne's and Ken's hypothetical argument and thought that 50 out of 100 world class players playing 5-card majors was quite a bit off.

[Cascade]

I didn't mean your list Ron, but Wayne's. I wouldn't call all the pairs who play in the Bermuda Bowl leading pairs. But obviously there are also a few of the truly great players who prefer to play 4-card majors.

 

Of course Hamman has played 4-card majors for a long time but mentioning Hamman-Compton as one of the pairs because they can open a 4-card major in third seat is a complete joke.

 

I also think that very few things in bridge are demonstrably superior or inferior. I would not dare to imply that 4-card majors are inferior as I don't have that much experience playing them. I was thinking along with Wayne's and Ken's hypothetical argument and thought that 50 out of 100 world class players playing 5-card majors was quite a bit off.

The Hamman/Compton convention card specifically says 4-card majors in 3rd/4th seat. I assumed from this it was more than an occasional offbeat 4-card major but a common experience something similar to what I play in third/fourth where we normally open a minimum balanced hand with a four-card major in the major. And as you point out Hamman has a long history of playing four-card majors.

 

I left other pairs off the list who mentioned four-card majors but it seemed more like that was something that they might try occasionally rather than a systemic typical style. I am not sure why that is a joke.

 

My hypothetical was not intended to represent actual numbers just to illustrate the logic of the phrase.

 

I agree that most common treatments are not demonstrably superior nor inferior.

 

Fred said that only one of the pairs in my previous list deserved to be there - the top ten of the World Championship Butler. I assume Helgemo/Helness but maybe he had some other pair in mind. If the World's top players are not found in the World Championships doing well I am not sure where we find them.

[kenrexford]

I would suspect that people who play different openings in 3rd/4th seat don't really have a 2/1 GF structure whehn Responder has already passed.

[helene_t]

I would suspect that people who play different openings in 3rd/4th seat don't really have a 2/1 GF structure whehn Responder has already passed.

Right, most World-Class pairs bid totally random after a 3rd seat opening, usually just bidding 3NT, or making nebulous doubles and cuebids which at least win the post-mortem :P

[jmcw]

Only 2 bids appeal

2♠ can be a dub in this sequence. I will pass 3NT

4♦ second choice.

[fred]

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   :rolleyes:

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.

I was not trying to be especially rigorous in the wording of my claim nor will be I try to be here. If some of you want to dissect every word that I wrote before or every word that follows in order to try to prove me wrong, then enjoy yourselves.

 

I was only referring to those who play 5-card majors. If you divide these into 2 groups:

 

1) Those who play that 2/1 responses to their 1st and 2nd seat major suit openings are forcing to game. I would include in this group those players who prefer to play a few sequences following a 2/1 as not forcing to game. If you disagree, think there are really 3 groups, or want to argue about where exactly to draw the line, enjoy yourselves.

 

2) Those who play a more traditional (call it Standard American or whatever you want) approach to 2/1s where many sequences following a 1st or 2nd seat major suit opening and a 2/1 response are not forcing to game.

 

My claim is that, among the world's leading players, there are a lot more in the first group than there are in the second group. Furthermore, I suspect that most of those in the first group feel strongly that their approach is superior.

 

Apologies if I did not dot the i's or cross the t's sufficiently the first time or if I have not done so sufficiently here.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I was not trying to be especially rigorous in the wording of my claim nor will be I try to be here. If some of you want to dissect every word that I wrote before or every word that follows in order to try to prove me wrong, then enjoy yourselves.

But, Fred. Some of us analyze each and every precise word you use, kind of like theologians review the exact word used in the original texts of the world's religious manuscripts. Arguments always develop when this is done. You know -- the three things that lead to more fights than anything else are religion, politics, and what Fred said. :o

[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.

I was not trying to be especially rigorous in the wording of my claim nor will be I try to be here. If some of you want to dissect every word that I wrote before or every word that follows in order to try to prove me wrong, then enjoy yourselves.

 

I was only referring to those who play 5-card majors. If you divide these into 2 groups:

 

1) Those who play that 2/1 responses to their 1st and 2nd seat major suit openings are forcing to game. I would include in this group those players who prefer to play a few sequences following a 2/1 as not forcing to game. If you disagree, think there are really 3 groups, or want to argue about where exactly to draw the line, enjoy yourselves.

 

2) Those who play a more traditional (call it Standard American or whatever you want) approach to 2/1s where many sequences following a 1st or 2nd seat major suit opening and a 2/1 response are not forcing to game.

 

My claim is that, among the world's leading players, there are a lot more in the first group than there are in the second group. Furthermore, I suspect that most of those in the first group feel strongly that their approach is superior.

 

Apologies if I did not dot the i's or cross the t's sufficiently the first time or if I have not done so sufficiently here.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

It is not so much arguing over every word as being mistaken in what you were saying.

 

I thought 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" meant something different than what you obviously had in your mind. Much the same as many might disagree if I said 'almost all of today's leading players seem to believe (strongly) in playing 2/1s as not GF over their own 4-card major suit openings'.

 

Your comment that most of the first group feel strongly that their approach is superior is an interesting one.

 

Many years ago I went to a lecture where the esteemed visiting lecturer asked those in attendance to answer a simple question. From memory it was something like the question "how many 'f's in this sentence?"

 

"finished files are the result of years of scientific study combined with the experiance of years"

 

I am not sure if the precise sentence used but he had the sentence displayed for maybe 30 sec and asked us to write down an answer.

 

Having done that he then asked us to write down how confident we were that our answer was correct.

 

The result was that those who were incorrect in counting the 'f's were actually more confident that they were correct than those who in fact were correct. He apparently had done some research and this was a common phenomonen.

 

I would be very surprised if anyone really knew that 2/1 was better (or worse) than a standard approach.

 

In practice it may well be better but that could simply be because better players are playing those methods and so continuations and developments are better thought out. Every system I have ever played has its holes and it takes effort to plug those holes to make a better system. Many top players plugging the holes in 2/1 will almost certainly make a better system than lesser players plugging the holes in not 2/1.

 

Certainly I don't recall ever seeing any analysis other than opinion about the relative merits of 2/1 versus not 2/1. Tysen Strieb did some analysis comparing systems over on rec.games.bridge but from memory that analysis was limited to opening bids and non-competitive auctions.

 

There are certainly some players (even very good ones) that are adament that 2/1 is not the best way to play bridge.

[awm]

There was some commentary about 2/1 GF in the book on Revision Club. After a lot of study from various hands played in world class competition, the conclusion was that there were very few hands where it made a difference how the 2/1 structure worked. Once we filter out the competitive auctions (very high percentage), the auctions where a minor suit or 1NT is opened (more of these than major suit openings especially in 5cM system), the auctions where responder has a raise of opener's suit (actually pretty frequent opposite 5cM), and the auctions where reaching the best contract is just so trivial that any good pair playing a half-decent set of methods can't screw it up... there just wasn't all that much left. ;)

 

One of the big advantages of 2/1 is that it's simpler than standard american. You don't need nearly as much discussion to determine which auctions are forcing, or to make out a playable (if hardly superior) convention card. This may seem counterintuitive in the US where "2/1" is taught as an "expert system" and most people learn "standard" first and then "graduate" from it -- but standard as played by beginners is not really a playable system at all. For this reason, 2/1 is the obvious system of choice for expert pickup partnerships, for experts playing with students, and so forth. The fact that most expert players have spent a lot of time playing in these situations (heck, even the most established expert partnership was an "expert pickup partnership" the first session they played) makes 2/1 an obvious favorite regardless of its relative merits.

 

In fact I seem to recall that Eddie Kantar and partner (using "standard" with a lot of agreements) trounced the expert field in a bidding competition back in the early days of 2/1 (like the late 1970s). Yet this did very little to slow 2/1 GF's surging popularity.

[fred]

The result was that those who were incorrect in counting the 'f's were actually more confident that they were correct than those who in fact were correct.  He apparently had done some research and this was a common phenomonen.

Not a very good analogy.

 

You are comparing a group of people who have 30 seconds of lifetime f-counting experience with a gruop of people who have typically spent decades studying and playing bridge and who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are very good at it (at least compared to everyone else).

 

Some opinions should be taken more seriously than others.

 

I would be very surprised if anyone really knew that 2/1 was better (or worse) than a standard approach.

 

Agree. For that matter, despite what Descartes claims, we don't even really know that we exist.

 

If you want to go through life and bridge thinking that nobody really knows anything, be my guest. FWIW I have found it to be very helpful to pay attention to the strong opinions of bridge players who know more than I do.

 

Of course there is no guarantee they are right since nobody really knows anything, but obviously such people tend to be right on bridge-related matters far more often than average or even average expert players. When large groups of such people come close to reaching a consensus in a given area, IMO you would have to either be very stubborn, very foolish, or a visionary genius to reject such a consensus.

 

Keep in mind that many of these people have a lot of experience playing both 2/1 and non-2/1. Sure they work on their partnerships now that they play 2/1, but they did the same thing when the played non-2/1. These people are therefore in a position to offer an intelligent opinion as to the merits of 2/1 vs. non-2/1.

 

They may not *know*, but they certainly know better than the rest of us.

 

There are certainly some players (even very good ones) that are adament that 2/1 is not the best way to play bridge.

 

For sure. And, if you count only "very good ones", there are certainly many more who claim the opposite. That is my point.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

I have argued similar things in the past comparing standard methods with relays.

 

With relay in our non-competitive slam bidding we had basically one agreement - relay. In my non-relay partnership we have literally 100s of agreements. Ok yes relay actually has lots of different agreements but nevertheless there are far more in non-relay systems.

 

2/1 GF establishing a force early is in a way a hybrid between a standard system and a relay system that also reduces the number of agreements (specific situations to discuss) required and makes the overall structure simpler to play - especially in pick-up partnerships.

 

2/1 GF auctions are relatively infrequent auctions. A couple of years ago I played a couple of tournaments using 2/1 GF. We went something like six sessions before actually have a 2/1 auction.

[whereagles]

2/1 GF establishing a force early is in a way a hybrid between a standard system and a relay system that also reduces the number of agreements (specific situations to discuss) required and makes the overall structure simpler to play - especially in pick-up partnerships.

Don't agree. To work well, 2/1 GF requires a lot more work and agreements, perhaps even more than a 2/1 F1 only. Of course, if the hands are all just game hands, you're much better off with 2/1. But when stuff is in the slam zone, you really have to go beyond stage 1.

 

This being said, it seems obvious to me that for serious partnerships the only disavantage of 2/1 is the overload it provokes on the 1NT response.

[helene_t]

Of course 2/1 GF makes it easier to determine which bids are forcing, but sometimes it is complicated to sort out partner's strength, and the catch-all 2M rebid makes it difficult to sort out opener's shape.

 

Yesterday we had this auction:

1♠-2♣

2♠-3♠

4♣-4NT

5♣-6♠

 

Opener (p) has a 5323 16-count which he didn't want to open 1NT because of the good spade suit (headed by AKQ I think), I had a 3343 15-count. We landed on our feet but I have questions about most of the bids:

2♣: I am not sure if there is an "expert standard" for 3343.

2♠: I expected six spades here, maybe a balanced or black twosuiter 12-14 (most people include those in the 2♠ rebid) but not a balanced 16.

3♠: Could this be on a doubleton? If so, now 3NT from opener could be an offer to play, but since both hands are unlimited it would also be nice to have 3NT as (non)serious.

4♣: I took this as a cue but I wondered if it shouldn't be natural, assuming that a opener would rebid 2♠ with a minimum hand with 5-5 blacks?

4NT: So which suit is trump here? If we play 6-king blackwood, does it apply here? If the 4♣ cue could be based on shortness it shouldn't, and even if he has Kx or AK, ♣K my not be an essential card.

5♣: I assumed he would have signed off in 4♠ with zero so this must be 3! However, since with extras and ♠AKQ he would not have bid 2♠ (I thought) I gave up on 7.

6♠: Dunno why I didn't bid 6NT since I had AQ in both red suits. Maybe I would if I had been more confident about the auction.

 

I know a more established partnership would not have these problems (at least not all of them), and also it would have helped if I had more general knowledge of 2/1. My point is just that it is not always a particularly easy system to use.

[whereagles]

helene, in my agreements, your auction would mean:

 

2♠ = catch all with min hands. Could be 5 cards if 5332 12-14 or 5-4 with 4 clubs.

3♠ = normal 3 card raise, not suitable for picture bid (pic bid is 4♠ now).

4♣= cue, slam interest despite the min hand (3NT would be frivolous, 4♠ would show bad min with bad controls).

4NT = now a clear RKCB for spades.

5♣ = 99,9% probability of 3 keys.

6♠ = one key is missing. With all keys we'd bid either 5NT asking for general extra values or 6x asking for a help in suit x.

 

What's more, pard would actually understand the bids the same way as I do. We're no-where near pros, so I'd say

 

YES, WE CAN :)

[kenrexford]

See! That's what I've been saying all along. 2/1 GF is simple bridge. No need for fancy nonsense. It's all fairly natural.

[mtvesuvius]

See! That's what I've been saying all along. 2/1 GF is simple bridge. No need for fancy nonsense. It's all fairly natural.

LOL

[jdonn]

Helene, I think you are a little paranoid with your doubts about the bids 4♣ and higher. :) And what you say about 2♣ is probably true but generally irrelevant, especially in this case. Really all you are saying is you didn't know if the 2♠ rebid promised 5 or 6. It's true, that is certainly something worth agreeing! Especially when it goes 1♠ 2♣ 2♠, since this is the only 2/1 auction where the possibility of a singleton in responder's suit and four card suit you could only show by reversing doesn't exist.

[Cascade]

But when stuff is in the slam zone, you really have to go beyond stage 1.

I think this is true for all standard systems.

 

Sometimes in 2/1 you have the advantage of easily knowing that a force has been established and then consequently you save bidding space for exploration and or a round of bidding (4th suit forcing etc) establishing a force.

[whereagles]

The point is that establishing a force matters little unless the players are able to limit at least one hand in terms of strength. Otherwise you'll be in a constant nervous wreck trying to guess which level to play :)

[OleBerg]

What I play:

 

1♠ - 2♥

3♦ - ?

 

3♥ = 6+

3♠ = Fourth suit forcing.

3NT = Natural.

4♣ = 3 spades, better than a 4♠ bid.

 

Not one of my own idées, so it could have some merit.

[Cascade]

What I play:

 

1♠ - 2♥

3♦ - ?

 

3♥ = 6+

3♠ = Fourth suit forcing.

3NT = Natural.

4♣ = 3 spades, better than a 4♠ bid.

 

Not one of my own idées, so it could have some merit.

I like it.

[jdonn]

What I play:

 

1♠ - 2♥

3♦ - ?

 

3♥ = 6+

3♠ = Fourth suit forcing.

3NT = Natural.

4♣ = 3 spades, better than a 4♠ bid.

 

Not one of my own idées, so it could have some merit.

I think it's inferior. You are hurting your ability to support spades both when you are minimum and when you have extras. And your gain is to have something to bid when specifially 2533 or perhaps 2524 with no club stopper? That's too small a target for such a big loss in supporting partner if you ask me.

[helene_t]

Josh, you seem to imply that with 4-card ♦ support you would never want to play 3NT?