Roshomon

[cherdanno]

If you're going to raise diamonds immediately, I don't understand 3♦ rather than 3♥. If the trumps are good enough for 3♦, why aren't they good enough for 3♥?

The value of the 4th trump is more crucial when opener has shortness?

[bluecalm]

It does not bother me at all when someone like you calls the common Western US style "amateur standard".

 

I didn't mean to bother you at all. I expressed my opinion about this style. Exchanging opinions on internet forum = good thing.

 

I don't think you are watching the right players.

 

Well, I am vugraph junkie. I saw thousands of hands of Italians, MR, Greco - Hampson, Balicki Zmudzinski and some from other famous players.

Unless my memory is deceiving me none of them would ever bid 2♦ on 4 diamonds and balanced hand.

 

I don't know who dburn was playing with here, but he's certainly a world class player e.g. I bet he has more Olympiad medals than you do.

 

I wasn't claiming I had more medals (as I have 0 it would be pretty optimistic), was smarter, understood bidding better or had some magic powers to say which agreement is better. I am amateur player without much experience. I know quite a bit about bidding systems of best world pairs though unless they are playing differently for vugraph than they do on day to day basis...

I was just expressing my opinion based on my little bridge experience and quite a lot of reading/watching/thinking that bidding 2♦ on 4 diamonds balanced violates basic bidding principles and is just bad.

 

The largest benefit is that 2D shows your shape well

 

I don't think it shows shape well. Partner can't count tricks if he isn't sure you have 5 of them and there will be often one card more in side suits which he won't get rid of also finding 5-3 fit will be quite difficult as will be assessing value of holdings like ♦Kx.

[bluecalm]

Edit: the big point of all this is: some posters recognize style differences; others just dismiss certain choices and call them awful, or other adjectives --without understanding the context. JLALL seems to go out of his way to recognize style differences, and others as well.

 

WTF ? Some styles are worse than others that's life.

If I think something is awful I am expressing this opinion. If someone doesn't think so he/she will express his opinion too and maybe we will learn something.

I think just saying it's "different style they are all equal" is counter productive.

[aguahombre]

Bluecalm: no one is saying that different styles are equal to one another. But answers to bidding questions which are based on different premises than yours might be equally workable for the different style. To judge such an answer "awful" is not helpful, and might distract the reader from what you really are trying to say.

 

You can get the same point across by showing how, within that person's style, their solution is not optimum.

 

I am trying to improve my previously conceived sarcastic tone. Maybe you can work on your blanket judgements without regard to context.

[peachy]

It does not bother me at all when someone like you calls the common Western US style "amateur standard".

 

I didn't mean to bother you at all. I expressed my opinion about this style. Exchanging opinions on internet forum = good thing.

Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough...

[Phil]

But I guess my point with all of this is not how awesome having to bid 2S with this hand is, it's more that:

 

1) Bidding 3D with 4 diamonds is awesome.

2) Bidding 3C with 5 clubs is awesome.

3) If you can do neither of those then the "downside" of 1 and 2 is that you have to bid 2S on this hand. I don't really see why it's a downside though. I'd rather bid 2S than a poorly defined 3D or 3C anyways.

I've never heard of this style but it sounds very interesting.

 

Does 3♦ tend to show a min or balanced since we didn't splinter?

 

How much extras does 3♣ promise?

 

Is 2N the default with 5332 or is this also defined?

[jdonn]

I have played 3♣ promises 5 when playing a strong club. It always felt to me like I was putting too many hands into 2♠ if I did it when playing standard but I can see how it could easily work.

[Bbradley62]

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> AKJ53 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> J </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> Q96 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> AJ43 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

You, South, open 1♠ and partner bids 2♦, game-forcing. What call do you make?

I'd bid 3C, the most natural bid available. If partner rebids 3D, you can probably RKC IMO. If partner bids 3S, you should make quite a few slam tries. If partner bid 3NT, you can bid 4D to show your pattern and slam interest. So you are well prepared IMO. When 3C shows both your pattern and strength, I don't see any reasons not to bid it. A natural bid which also narrows down your strength range is the reason we play a quite natural system, instead of relays systems.

Since OP did not specify partnership agreements such as "2♦ shows five" or "3♣ would show five", we should presume that those agreements are not in force, and he is looking for guidance within the constraints of his system. Given the parameters, junyi_zhu's analysis seems exactly correct.

[bluecalm]

and he is looking for guidance within the constraints of his system.

 

Yeah, but how do we know what system is that ?

[Jlall]

and he is looking for guidance within the constraints of his system.

 

Yeah, but how do we know what system is that ?

Heh I mean if you call someones style bad/amateur standard/nonsensical you're gonna get these types of reactions. If you don't care about that then it's all good (I don't really care, I'm used to it). If you do care then just be more PC, but it's never gonna happen that you can make a statement like that and not get some strong reactions. Personally I think it's a shame everyone is so PC, but others think it's a shame that I am "rude" so w/e.

 

I will say that I agree with you that some styles are definitely. bad, and bidding 2D with 4 is one of them in my opinion. I agree with you that it is a minority way to play at the higher levels, but people definitely play it (dburn obviously being one of them).

 

I will also say that bidding 3C with 5-4 and extras is a huge majority position and that I would probably be considered a fringe weirdo on this one, but I still think I'm right that it should be 5-5 (shocking!).

 

@Jdonn: Most of the extra hands that you include in 2S now that you wouldn't in strong club are the 5-4 17+ hands. Those hands can all drive to 4N or whatever, so you are not really overloading your 2S bid. Hands that can drive past game should not be worried about because they will easily be able to show their strength later. The 16 counts can be awkward sometimes as the old 16 opp 16 problem is always there and bidding 3C on 5-4 16 solves that, but I really wouldn't worry about it so much to change my system from non strong club to strong club.

 

Frankly I think it should be auto that the highest bid eg 1S 2H 3D and 1H 2D 3C show 5-5 since they need to be bid so infrequently and are so bad, and I think 1S-2D-3C definitely falls into that camp. Yes you have 3H available to deal with some of the awkwardness but it's really not enough.

 

@Phil: I mean you can get totally artificial and that would be a big improvement, but if we are sticking with natural means then I would just bid 2N on positional hands and 2S on anti positional hands. I don't know what a minimum 3C bid is...AKxxx x xx AQxxx can't be too far off either way.

[y66]

Kokish-san and Kraft-wo-man suggest this agreement in Modern American Bidding (2003):

After a two-over-one response:

 

A two-level reverse or a non-jump three-level new-suit bid and raise to three-of-a-minor [at least four trumps, sound opening] shows extra strength (the "high reverse" at the three-level promising at least five-five), but a single raise to three hearts may be based on a minimum hand.

 

Opener's new-suit jump after a two-over-one response is a splinter raise but needn't deliver more than a sound opening bid with four-card trump support.

 

A two-notrump rebid by opener shows at least 15 HCP, a balanced hand, suitable stoppers.

 

Opener rebids his major with hands unsuitable for a different rebid.

 

[aguahombre]

The above Kokish recommendation is based on a weak NT style. It sounds good for that premise. Otherwise, trying to find a 15+ balanced hand to rebid 2NT after 2/1 might not be a fruitful search.

[bluecalm]

The above Kokish recommendation is based on a weak NT style. It sounds good for that premise. Otherwise, trying to find a 15+ balanced hand to rebid 2NT after 2/1 might not be a fruitful search.

 

Depends how you open with 5M-3-3-2 15-17. I noticed most Americans open it 1NT. Most Europeans 1M. I am not going to call one style or another awful this time but I prefer Italian/Polish style of opening 1M unless hand is very NT oriented and suit is weak. To play this way you need something like gazilli in subsequent bidding though.

[aguahombre]

Well, it certainly does reduce the frequency of a 2NT rebid after 2/1 :)

[hanp]

Most Europeans 1M.

Most Americans also open 1M. Well, most Americans don't play bridge of course, but among those that do, most have probably never encountered the idea of opening 1NT with a 5-card major.

 

Perhaps you meant to restrict your comment to expert bridge players only. I must say I don't know any Dutch expert who refuses to open 1NT with a 5-card major. I am surprised to learn that Italians don't open 1NT with a 5-card major.

[bluecalm]

I must say I don't know any Dutch expert who refuses to open 1NT with a 5-card major. I am surprised to learn that Italians don't open 1NT with a 5-card major

.

 

Yeah, they don't. By Italians I mean Lauria - Versace and Sementa Duboin (who basically play simplified LV). Fantoni Nunes open their 12-14 1NT with everything resembling balanced shape :)

[y66]

The above Kokish recommendation is based on a weak NT style.  It sounds good for that premise.  Otherwise, trying to find a 15+ balanced hand to rebid 2NT after 2/1 might not be a fruitful search.

K&K's Modern American Bidding is based on this general structure:

 

- Strong notrump (15-17, perhaps a poor 18);

- 5-card majors with

--- a semi-forcing 1NT response,

--- two-level new suit responses forcing to game;

- 2C strong, artificial, near game force;

- 2NT = 20+ - 22, balanced .

- other two-bids: natural and preemptive;

[Jlall]

I used to basically be a worshipper of kokish and am pretty sure I first learned of the idea of new suits at the 3 level showing 5-5 from him. He is a smart dude.

[Finch]

I will also say that bidding 3C with 5-4 and extras is a huge majority position and that I would probably be considered a fringe weirdo on this one, but I still think I'm right that it should be 5-5 (shocking!).

 

@Jdonn: Most of the extra hands that you include in 2S now that you wouldn't in strong club are the 5-4 17+ hands. Those hands can all drive to 4N or whatever, so you are not really overloading your 2S bid. Hands that can drive past game should not be worried about because they will easily be able to show their strength later. The 16 counts can be awkward sometimes as the old 16 opp 16 problem is always there and bidding 3C on 5-4 16 solves that, but I really wouldn't worry about it so much to change my system from non strong club to strong club.

 

Frankly I think it should be auto that the highest bid eg 1S 2H 3D and 1H 2D 3C show 5-5 since they need to be bid so infrequently and are so bad, and I think 1S-2D-3C definitely falls into that camp. Yes you have 3H available to deal with some of the awkwardness but it's really not enough.

 

@Phil: I mean you can get totally artificial and that would be a big improvement, but if we are sticking with natural means then I would just bid 2N on positional hands and 2S on anti positional hands. I don't know what a minimum 3C bid is...AKxxx x xx AQxxx can't be too far off either way.

You see, you are slowly coming round to the conclusion that lower-level rebids after a 2/1 should be artificial... just a step further and you'll see that it's optimal to play 1S - 2D - 2H as the artificial catch-all as the lowest rebid... nearly there...

[Jlall]

You see, you are slowly coming round to the conclusion that lower-level rebids after a 2/1 should be artificial... just a step further and you'll see that it's optimal to play 1S - 2D - 2H as the artificial catch-all as the lowest rebid... nearly there...

Obv you should just play step 1 as the catchall in 2/1 auctions, that's a no brainer. Doesn't take a genius to come to that conclusion.

 

In fact I think jdonn and I used to play that many years ago. I've never played it in a serious partnership though.

 

Since nobody will play it with me I stick to trying to improve upon "natural" while keeping it as unartificial as possible.

[y66]

Deleted

[aguahombre]

In fact I think jdonn and I used to play that many years ago. I've never played it in a serious partnership though.

I am sure Josh will take that in the nicest way.

[lmilne]

My first instinct was to bid 3♥ (playing 2♦ as 5+, usually unbal), but posts in this thread have convinced me otherwise - no need to set diamonds immediately etc.

[jdonn]

In fact I think jdonn and I used to play that many years ago. I've never played it in a serious partnership though.

I am sure Josh will take that in the nicest way.

We played 0 hands of live bridge together. UNTIL DOMINATING THE MIDNIGHTS IN RENO!

[dburn]

Dealer: South Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AKJ53 ♥ J ♦ Q96 ♣ AJ43

You, South, open 1♠ and partner bids 2♦, game-forcing. What call do you make?

To return to our discussion:

 

You do not play that 2♦ promises five, nor do you play that opener's raise to 3♦ shows extra values, nor that it shows more than three diamonds. Nor do you play opener's rebid of 2♥ as "catch-all", nor do you play any other simple rebid by opener as artificial.

 

No doubt you are a poor benighted heathen for not playing any or all of the above, and no doubt the next time I see Robert Sheehan (my partner on this occasion) I will point out to him that he is an unreconstructed Luddite - though in fact there is little need to do this, since Zia already does it about four times a day.

 

You elect to bid 3♣, partner bids 3♥ (defined as no more than "fourth suit forcing") and you (I presume) bid 4♦. Partner bids 4NT, you bid 5♠ and partner bids 5NT. This invites you to bid a grand slam if you think your side can make one. Otherwise: you may show a king outside the trump suit that your bidding has not hitherto revealed; or you may sign off in six diamonds.

 

What call do you make?