supper accpetion idea

[1eyedjack]

i don't see anything you can play that i can't play

I get the impression that your game forcing continuations are lumped almost entirely into the 2D response and are geared very heavily toward responder taking control and relaying, with opener describing his hand. Indeed I do not think that there is sufficient bidding space to cater for both hands to describe, in a single game forcing response. Furthermore, although 2D is a relatively cheap response it is considerably more expensive than 2C (Fibbonacci and all that, count the number of continuations). The question then arises, is it necessary for responder ever to describe his GF hand, or is it sufficient for responder to relay and for opener to describe in all GF cases?

 

It is my observation that by relaying, there is a limit to the amount of information that responder can obtain about opener's hand by the time that you reach the 3NT watershed. That limit is usually reserved for identifying opener's complete distribution and, if there is room (and there is not always room) a distinction between max v min. Whilst the extent of a trump fit can be established, as well as perhaps the general values, it remains unknown the extent to which opener's values are working hard or are wasted. That unknown factor tends to assume a lesser significance when responder is balanced, and a greater significance when responder is distributional.

[hv=w=saxxhxdkqxxxcaxxx&e=sxxxxhkqtdaxxckqx]266|100|Example 1, best contract 3NT, alternative 5D at risk[/hv][hv=w=saxxhxdkqxxxcaxxx&e=skqthxxxxdaxxckqx]266|100|Example 2, best contract 5D, 6D having play, alternative 3N at risk[/hv]

If West, responder to 1N, relays in both of the above examples, and discovers by the time of 3NT nothing more than opener's complete distribution (and perhaps a narrower point range) then he is not well placed to decide the final contract at this stage, nor even whether it is safe to venture beyond 3NT in order to enquire. If anything the presence of the 4th Heart in example 2, and lack of 4th Heart in example 1, will tend to influence him toward making the wrong gamble. By contrast, if responder shows a GF 3-1-5-4 shape then opener is well placed in both cases.

 

It is therefore my experience that hands worth game forcing responder fall into two broad categories: those that are better treated by requiring opener to describe his hand (responder, typically balanced, relaying), and those which are better treated by responder describing his own (typically unbalanced) hand. This conclusion in turn suggests that using 2H and 2S responses in a non-forcing capacity are not optimal use of resources.

[luke warm]

excellent points... on the 1st example hand you gave, i would be in 5D, maybe making, maybe not.. both would start the same (this is assuming i valued responder hand as gf, which i would)

 

1nt : 2d

2nt : 3c = any 4333, 3c asks

3nt : 4c = 4333, 4c is control ask

4h : 4s

4nt - opener has no spade control so has either A,K♥ and K♣ or ♥A and ♦A or the hand he has

 

1nt : 2d

2nt : 3c

3s : 4c = 3433, control ask

4h : 4s

4nt : 5c = responder knows opener has no heart control, so all 4 are in other suits

5nt : 6d = opener is known to have the hand he holds

 

granted, the auction might not go the way shown.. anybody can *say* they'd bid a certain way given certain hands, and i think that would be the way i'd bid, but i can't judge how objective i am (not in any objective sense heheh)...

 

all in all, i agree that the more balanced responder is, the better able he is to judge.. but i'm not willing to say that just because he's unbalanced (in a bridge sense :)), other ways to bid good games/slams are that much better

[twcho]

1eyedjack, excellent analysis