Partner opens, you have a GF hand with 4cM and longer minor

[OleBerg]

Perhaps people should optimize their second round agreements so that they don't have to start with an inferior bid.

 

+1

[gnasher]

Perhaps people should optimize their second round agreements so that they don't have to start with an inferior bid.

 

Doesn't that argument cut both ways? As I understand it, the reason for responding 2♣ on 4-4 in the blacks is that you have bad auctions after a 1♠ response. Another possible solution to the problem is to improve the sequences that start 1♥-1♠.

[mtvesuvius]

Doesn't that argument cut both ways? As I understand it, the reason for responding 2♣ on 4-4 in the blacks is that you have bad auctions after a 1♠ response. Another possible solution to the problem is to improve the sequences that start 1♥-1♠.

The problem is that it's not possible to improve much unless you play some sort of transfers (causing problems for Balanced hands), or play 1♥-2♠ as weak, and 1♥-1♠-2x-2♠ as an Artificial GF. 1♥-1♠ auctions cannot be improved too much, and so it seems logical to not use them when possible.

[bluecalm]

2C on 4-4 black and gf is standard imo. I saw this recommended in a book about acol from 80's :-)

It's also fit very well to how people play 2/1 here.

 

Not to hijack this thread Vampyr, but I agree. Lets say the bidding goes:

 

1H 2C

2H 3H

 

And here we have example from someone playing ston eage 2/1 style.

Of course if you bid 3H on this, then that sucks. I guess you also bid 2D (1H - 2D) with 4 diamonds.

Back to the hand you just bid 2NT after 2H and all the problems are over. This by the way what you have, balanced gf hand which 2C includes. 3H should show real clubs.

If you have more agreements even 2S would do.

[han]

Doesn't that argument cut both ways? As I understand it, the reason for responding 2♣ on 4-4 in the blacks is that you have bad auctions after a 1♠ response. Another possible solution to the problem is to improve the sequences that start 1♥-1♠.

 

I saw my comment as a cheap jest rather than as an argument. I do think that if both 1H - 1S and 1H - 2C auctions are well thought out, it will be better to start with 2C. In my experience it is very convenient to immediately show a GF on hands like this, and it will more often lead to succesful auctions.

[dicklont]

-1.

 

Frances Hinden is always +1.

[gnasher]

I saw my comment as a cheap jest rather than as an argument

 

You should be pleased that even your cheap jests provoke serious discussion.

[the hog]

You found a fit, what's the problem?

Si you are saying if I have a 5-3 H fir I should give up o a possible 4-4 S fit. That is a very sill suggestion.

[the hog]

2C on 4-4 black and gf is standard imo. I saw this recommended in a book about acol from 80's :-)

It's also fit very well to how people play 2/1 here.

 

 

 

And here we have example from someone playing ston eage 2/1 style.

Of course if you bid 3H on this, then that sucks. I guess you also bid 2D (1H - 2D) with 4 diamonds.

Back to the hand you just bid 2NT after 2H and all the problems are over. This by the way what you have, balanced gf hand which 2C includes. 3H should show real clubs.

If you have more agreements even 2S would do.

 

Yeah I suppose Larry Cohen and other on the Bridge Winners site do play stone age 2/1. You have shot yourself in the foot this time Bluecalm.

[mtvesuvius]

Si you are saying if I have a 5-3 H fir I should give up o a possible 4-4 S fit. That is a very sill suggestion.

Thanks. I'll be quite happy in my fit, you can feel free to go poking around for yours. Make sure you get to bid 3♣ as an Artificial GF while you're at it.

[the hog]

Thanks. I'll be quite happy in my fit, you can feel free to go poking around for yours. Make sure you get to bid 3♣ as an Artificial GF while you're at it.

 

I know you are very young and I guess you have not played long enough to know that a 4-4 fit generally plays at least one trick better than a 5-3? By they way,

1H 1S

2H

I as do may others, play 2NT as a gf and consequently do not need the crutch of an artifical 3C.

[mtvesuvius]

No, but I'm old enough to play that 2♠ is not a reverse here.

[Siegmund]

Sure seems to me like the right answer has to be "depends on methods." It just happens most of the respondents are accustomed to a method where 2m-first is the way their whole system is designed.

 

I prefer a 1M-first style, personally, but that's ONLY in the context of some firm agreements about how 4-5s, 4-6s, are shown and distinguished from 5-5s.

 

Playing with a solid unknown in a SA or 2/1 or "didnt discuss anything at all' context I would certainly assume 2m-first is what partner expects.

[bluecalm]

Yeah I suppose Larry Cohen and other on the Bridge Winners site do play stone age 2/1. You have shot yourself in the foot this time Bluecalm.

 

I don't know what Larry Cohen plays.

If you are going to bid 3H on both balanced hands and hands with natural clubs then this system sucks.

There might be many reasons to play system that weak though. One is that maybe the losses are not that important as memory strain for some even very good players. I don't know. I am just saying that if you are unable to find 4-4 spade fit after 2C or/and have to bid 3H with both balanced hands and 5+clubs - 3H or/and you bid 2D with 4 diamonds and balanced hands then this is inferior system which belongs to history of bridge. It's still probably playable though, I mean, it's all about cardplay anyway...

 

As to why 2C on 4-4black and slam invite hand is better in usual 2/1 frame it's because you get to know more and faster about opener hand if you bid 2C (which you want with slam invite). You also won't get stuck in:

1H - 1S

2D - ???? sequence when you will be very lucky to bid your slam invite with H support below game level.

[the hog]

No, but I'm old enough to play that 2♠ is not a reverse here.

 

Volcanic one, if one interprets your syntax, what you are actually saying is that you NEVER bid 2S here. It is a reverse, whether you like the term or not. I think what you meant to say, was that the 2S reverse does not show extra values for you.

[mtvesuvius]

Volcanic one, if one interprets your syntax, what you are actually saying is that you NEVER bid 2S here. It is a reverse, whether you like the term or not. I think what you meant to say, was that the 2S reverse does not show extra values for you.

Thank you for the grammar lesson. I think it was pretty clear what I meant.

[the hog]

I am just saying that if you are unable to find 4-4 spade fit after 2C or/and have to bid 3H with both balanced hands and 5+clubs - 3H or/and you bid 2D with 4 diamonds and balanced hands then this is inferior system which belongs to history of bridge.

 

Bluecalm, this comment I agree with 100%

[Zelandakh]

Since we are now talking about 4324 hands in response to a 1♥ opening, perhaps at least a passing mention should go to Fred's suggestion of using a 2NT response for a balanced GF allowing the 2m response to remain pure as a decent 5+ card suit. This is one method of solving bluecalm's issue of balanced and unbalanced hands being lumped together. If you have not seen Fred's post and are worrying about losing Jacoby then I should mention that he uses 1♥ - 2♠ for this purpose instead.

[the hog]

Well Zelandakh, there is nothing wrong with that treatment at all. What I find funny, and this has nothing to do with your post by the way, is that you get posters suggesting this, that and the other almost in a vacuum with no regard to the impact it has on the rest of their system. I would expect that from beginner-intermediate players who want to load up their conventions, but then have no idea how it will impact the rest of their bidding. I wouldn't expect it in this forum, but it appears to happen here as well. A typical example - a 2S reverse showing no extra values. Ok then, how do you show extra values? Play weasel perhaps as many do?

[mtvesuvius]

When partner tries to sign off, you bid on, easy game. I'm well aware of the other system changes and differences that it might cause.

 

Perhaps you prefer 1♠ partially because you've played a lot of MAFIA responses? (Which BTW I think have a lot of merit)

[the hog]

When partner tries to sign off, you bid on, easy game. I'm well aware of the other system changes and differences that it might cause.

 

Perhaps you prefer 1♠ partially because you've played a lot of MAFIA responses? (Which BTW I think have a lot of merit)

 

MtV I certainly prefer 1S on the 4324 hand; I don't necessarily on the 4S long D hand at all. All I was stating in my posts was that there are other methods which have equal validity. I get annoyed when some posters here assume that their methods are the only ones that are valid - look at some of the posts here - "get a beginner's book" etc etc. There is a bit of a herd mentality here which has manifested itself in the last couple of years. Indeed some of these posts were so stupid and arrogant that one could only conclude that either

 

a) The posters had never heard of any other methods or

b) They are so up themselves that they dismiss anything other than their own style.

 

Well there are other very good, even world class, even in the top 10 pairs who use different methods and obviously successfully. Whether those methods are better or worse is irrelevant, the point is others do use other methods.

 

Fwiw the only time I would ever have bid 1S on the 4S long D hand when I briefly - about 3 months or so - experimented with MAFIA style responses. I did not play them long enough to reach a definitive conclusion about them, except that there were some advantages we noted and no major, (excuse the inadvertent pun), disadvantages.

[mtvesuvius]

OK, I agree with you there. There are certainly other methods out there, I think that bidding 1♠ on the 4324 definitely isn't best... but it's an option. I was also under the impression that you were advocating 1♠ on the long diamond hand as well, which I believe to be awful (that one I feel very strongly on unless playing MAFIA).