Opener's rebid playing 2/1 GF

[pclayton]

So what was the complete list of 2♠ bidders; just so I can add them to my list of pigeons, the next time I play a National? :huh:

[junyi_zhu]

The major reason to play 2/1 GF is to get rid of the 3 card temporized rebid as

standard systems do, because you are in a GF situation, so you can pretty much

bid your hand naturally.

Whether or not this hand qualifies a reverse is still open to discussion.

Here, if you bid 2H as waiting, and partner bids 2S, you may still splinter 4C to show

4 spades and shortness in clubs. However, if your partner rebids 3H to support you,

you would have a hard time to show your shape and strength; you are preempted by

the raise.

 

So 2S or 2H are not perfect either, but that doesn't make 2D sounds nicer because 2D

in nature show 4 diamonds and unlimited.

 

However, if you play my 2/1 frame, I have a simple cure: 2D!

 

Yes, 2D here in my 2/1 frame is a waiting that just solves all the problems.

so 2H here would show diamonds and extra, 2S shows hearts and extra length,

2N shows spades and extra value.  So 2D just shows either balanced hands or minimum hands. This hand should be treated as minimum because of the club shortness. So the hand is about 5.5 losers + 1 (because of the club shortness),

all hands >= 6.5 losers would justify the waiting bid.

 

Bridge is a game that has to live with judgement calls, the goal of system improvement is to minimize the judgement calls.

Did this panel really play 2/1 GF? I guess they didn't.  2D is the worst bid ever, if you bid 2D and partner happened to hold 4 diamonds, strong hand and RKCed, how would you feel? In that sense, it's even worse than 2NT

which actually is not as horrible as many assumed.

 

Yes, the panel played 2-over-1 game forcing. This was a MasterSolver problem, using Bridge World Standard. To quote the editor "You might think this is a pretty straight foward 2-over-1, or Eastern scientific, or BWS bidding problem, or non-problem. Wrong!

 

I will let it to the readers of this thread to decide if "2D is the worst bid ever", in fact, i agree with Larry Cohen, Robert Wolfe, Gail Greenberg, Barbara Haberman, Carl Hudecek, Sami Kelela, Al Roth, and Auther Robinson, that it is the best bid. A number of other panelist consider it second best to their choice. I wonder how many will agree with you that it THE WORST BID EVER. You must live a perfect bridge life if you find this the worst ever.

 

As for reversing the meaning of 2D and 2H? Seems unnecessary to me..... allows them to double 2di for lead, or for other competitive purposes. But to each his own.

 

Ben

Is BWS 2/1 gameforcing? I really don't think so. If you think BWS is a 2/1 GF, aces' system as 2/1 GF, then we are not playing the same system.

Also, my structure is not to simply switch 2D and 2H. It's a super gain because your partner can raise you at low level and at the same time show minimum or balanced hands. Still, after such a long post, you still didn't tell me how do you feel if your partner RKC over your 2D rebid. For 2/1 GF system, it's just insane to distort your shape at the second bid I'd say and for most time, you can't even recover from that.

 

Here, let me show your some other nice features my framework has:

1S 2C

2D(waiting) 2N(spade support, extra)

instead of 1S 2C 2S 3S

that saves a whole level of space for you to describe your hand and that also allows

responder to support his partner and show his extra at two level.

 

1S 2D

2N(6 or more spades, extra)

most waiting system can not show this feature at 2 level.

 

1S 2C

2D 3H(set up clubs as trumps and asking for cuebids)

most 2/1 GF system can not set up their 2/1 suit below 4 level over partner's waiting bids.

 

1S 2C

2D 2H(responder's waiting, either minimum or balanced)

 

then you can stop at 4 m if you find 3NT is not playable and no fit in major suits.

When both showed minimum, system allows players to stop at 4 m. No other system

ever has a clean and neat scheme to show when to stop at 4m and how to stop at 4m without messing up their slam going bids.

 

1S 2C

2D 3C

showing extra and 6 or more clubs,

most 2/1 system can't even afford such a desriptive bid,

if they play 2S as waiting, then 3C can't gurantee extra or they have

to bid 2NT to be responder's waiting which might not save the day either

because 2NT can be to high.

 

It's actually a tremendous edge over 2/1 systems nowadays and in the future, most serious 2/1 players would probably play at least a variation of my structure I predict.

 

So it's really not wise to evaluate a system without much knowledge of it.

[inquiry]

Is BWS 2/1 gameforcing? I really don't think so. If you think BWS is a 2/1 GF, aces' system as 2/1 GF, then we are not playing the same system.

Is BridgeWorld Standard "really" 2-over-1 Game force? Seems an immaterial question to me, the poll was posed that it 2/1 was being used. Even so, the BWS version circa 2001 is not "really" game force, the bidding can stop in responsders minor if opener fails to show extra values, but 2H and 2D are both forcing. This bidding contest was from 1988, and if memory serves me correct, it was game forcing then...but I could pull out old issues and review. It is clear, however from the values held in this hand that game (at least) will be bid, and the 2D bidders had no concern partner would pass.

 

Here, let me show your some other nice features my framework has" ((....... framework skipped... ))"So it's really not wise to evaluate a system without much knowledge of it

 

In a voting poll based upon understanding of "Standard treatments" is an inapproriate place to going deals on "your framework" (or others home grown ones). Start a new thread, and I will be glad to discuss the advantage and disadvantage of your method. You may not know it, but I too I have my own pet methods, for me, 2♣ over 1 of a major can be a lot of hands (drury, balanced - no fit, or true 2/1 GF), but for the purpose of this question, I am stuck, as should be to the issue at hand... what would a normal, 2/1 GF opener rebid with this hand.

 

Thus, with in this thread, I have no desire to evaluate or discuss your framework or the use of a 2D bid to be a heart rebid, or a 2H bid to show diamonds. Neither of these non-standard treatements can have any bearing on the data obatined in the poll, or the sharing of hand evaluation ideas. If polls were run where anybody could invent (or use) any bid they wanted, someone could say, I rebid 3NT here to show four modest spades, three strong hearts, a singleton club and 15/16 hcp. That of course would be a very descriptive bid with this hand. We might all agree that is a great use or a horrible use for a 3NT bid, but we couldn't argue that if you had that method, this would be a wonderful hand to use that bid on.

 

So in final analysis, even if you method was the best thing since sliced bread, I wouldn't get into an evaluation of it within this thread. The rules of the site require that we "Keep posts on-topic". We all know that topic drift occurs, and alternative bidding structures can be a drift, but on a poll, you are FORCED to vote for the structure proposed in that poll. You can abstain. You can offer a reason for abstaining ("my structure is better"), but a back and forth on your structure really deserves a separate thread.

 

If your treatement is so wonderful, simply start a new thread and gather support for it. This poll has shown that a very simple and routine 2/1 auction with a routine hand has enough interesting things to discuss and long discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of a non-standards treatment such as yours has a tendency to stiffle the purpose and intent of the orginal poll and subsequent thread. So to keep this thread on target... which is how to handle this hand in standard 2/1.

 

Ben

[junyi_zhu]

Is BWS 2/1 gameforcing? I really don't think so. If you think BWS  is a 2/1 GF, aces' system as 2/1 GF, then we are not playing the same system.

Is BridgeWorld Standard "really" 2-over-1 Game force? Seems an immaterial question to me, the poll was posed that it 2/1 was being used. Even so, the BWS version circa 2001 is not "really" game force, the bidding can stop in responsders minor if opener fails to show extra values, but 2H and 2D are both forcing. This bidding contest was from 1988, and if memory serves me correct, it was game forcing then...but I could pull out old issues and review. It is clear, however from the values held in this hand that game (at least) will be bid, and the 2D bidders had no concern partner would pass.

 

Here, let me show your some other nice features my framework has" ((....... framework skipped... ))"So it's really not wise to evaluate a system without much knowledge of it

 

In a voting poll based upon understanding of "Standard treatments" is an inapproriate place to going deals on "your framework" (or others home grown ones). Start a new thread, and I will be glad to discuss the advantage and disadvantage of your method. You may not know it, but I too I have my own pet methods, for me, 2♣ over 1 of a major can be a lot of hands (drury, balanced - no fit, or true 2/1 GF), but for the purpose of this question, I am stuck, as should be to the issue at hand... what would a normal, 2/1 GF opener rebid with this hand.

 

Thus, with in this thread, I have no desire to evaluate or discuss your framework or the use of a 2D bid to be a heart rebid, or a 2H bid to show diamonds. Neither of these non-standard treatements can have any bearing on the data obatined in the poll, or the sharing of hand evaluation ideas. If polls were run where anybody could invent (or use) any bid they wanted, someone could say, I rebid 3NT here to show four modest spades, three strong hearts, a singleton club and 15/16 hcp. That of course would be a very descriptive bid with this hand. We might all agree that is a great use or a horrible use for a 3NT bid, but we couldn't argue that if you had that method, this would be a wonderful hand to use that bid on.

 

So in final analysis, even if you method was the best thing since sliced bread, I wouldn't get into an evaluation of it within this thread. The rules of the site require that we "Keep posts on-topic". We all know that topic drift occurs, and alternative bidding structures can be a drift, but on a poll, you are FORCED to vote for the structure proposed in that poll. You can abstain. You can offer a reason for abstaining ("my structure is better"), but a back and forth on your structure really deserves a separate thread.

 

If your treatement is so wonderful, simply start a new thread and gather support for it. This poll has shown that a very simple and routine 2/1 auction with a routine hand has enough interesting things to discuss and long discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of a non-standards treatment such as yours has a tendency to stiffle the purpose and intent of the orginal poll and subsequent thread. So to keep this thread on target... which is how to handle this hand in standard 2/1.

 

Ben

First, your hand over partner's 2/1 can bid into a game doesn't mean this system is 2/1 GF. 2/1 GF and 2/1 is GF only when responder doesn't rebid his 2/1 suit are two different animals. For the latter one, some 3 card temporizing bids have to be included in their system, which is actually against the nature of 2/1 GF system, that once in 2/1 GF situations, a new suit usually shows at least 4 or more.

 

2/1 GF is just a framework, it's not even a fixed system and most don't play the same thing although they name what they play as 2/1 GF. That's why the votes are so different. Without talking about a fixed system, there is no way for anybody to come into the same conclusion. For some, reverse over 2/1 needs extra, for some, reverse over 2/1 doesn't, for some, reverse over 2/1 needs extra, but 14 HCP would be enough for them to reverse. Also, I am just against your comment on my 2/1 framework. It wasn't even me to start this thread to comment on my system. It was yourself.

 

So, when there is no standard treatment in 2/1, it's just no use to discuss about what to bid in 2/1 for the problem, because people are just playing different systems.

 

Even though there is no "standard" 2/1 GF system, some basic principles are still there.

One key issue of 2/1 GF is just to get rid those 3 card forcing bids in old standard systems to describe the shape of hands in a more natural and sound way and both sides don't have to worry about getting passed below games.

 

That is actually what you have seen in this thread. Either 2H or 2S is right in my point of view. It's a sysmic issue, not a hand evaluation issue. Also, I have stated the hand's strength in a very clear way: it's about 6.5 losers at this stage and a normal 15 HCP hand. Still, after all, a natural 2D is not a sound bid if one plays 2/1 GF, you may survive when partner doesn't hold diamond suits and a lot of extra values, but you may have a huge bidding disaster if he does. The problem can be presented in a much nicer way: Should reverse at 2 level over partner's 2/1 GF show extra? If it shows, then what's the minimum requirement for such a reverse? Now, there are just some disputes and it doesn't really go as smoothly as you expected, because you used some words like those who bids 2S doesn't know how to bid.

 

The last issue is about multiple meanings of 1S 2C as GF. I don't think it's a sound structure for a wide range opening bids although many top players play it. Most don't play 1S 3C as strong jumpshift, and they should always have a problem to set up their 2/1 suit as trumps because it usually goes to 4 level. 2/1 can't do very well in this area although you are in a GF situation. That means although 2C is low, you still have a lot of hand types to describe and it's no easy to include more hand types into it. I have been thinking about this problem for a long while. It's true that 2C is low, but 5C or 6C are low as well, that means you actually don't have that much space as you assumed. That's why minor suit games or slams are no easy to bid.

[mike777]

I Keep seeing statements such as "what are our agreements in this situation?"

 

I thought the point was to try and improve our bridge logic, not just make automatic bids.

 

Do not most or all of us play many or most of our BBO hands here in a somewhat new or casual partnership? Assume most of the hands we play here are not in an in -depth partnership agreement.

 

Assume less than 1% bridge partnerships hands on BBO have detailed agreements and often even then a situation comes up where no agreement or our understanding is forgotten or not the same as partners.

 

 

Assume the point is with 99.5% of our partners we play with at the table we do not have an agreement.

[pclayton]

My memory is that BWS84 would have been in place which played 5 card majors without 2/1 GF. 1N was semi-forcing, as it is now.

 

A 2/1 was a force through 2N.

[Poky]

Clear cut 2H. 2S bidders do not know how to evaluate a hand.

Agree 100%.

 

2♠ will I bid with a hand like:

♠ATxx

♥ATxxx

♦x

♣Kxx

or similar and stronger.

[the hog]

I Keep seeing statements such as "what are our agreements in this situation?"

 

I thought the point was to try and improve our bridge logic, not just make automatic bids.

 

Do not most or all of us play many or most of our BBO hands here in a somewhat new or casual partnership? Assume most of the hands we play here are not in an in -depth partnership agreement.

 

Assume less than 1% bridge partnerships hands on BBO have detailed agreements and often even then a situation comes up where no agreement or our understanding is forgotten or not the same as partners.

 

 

Assume the point is with 99.5% of our partners we play with at the table we do not have an agreement.

Don't know about the rest of you, but in my case definitely not correct. Virtually all my bridge is played with a regular partner. With the posted problem everything depends on partnership agreement. Some 2/1 players play that a reverse here is shape showing and does not show extra values. If you have that agreement your answer will be totally different to those that don't.

 

In my case 2H is totally the correct bid - no alternatives possible. However, I accept that some partnerships might agree that this shows 6H, (regardless of how flawed that concept may be). Ben bids 2D and again this is impossible in my partnership as we don't bid fake suits, but it works for him - again partnership agreement!

[inquiry]

Fake suit? AKx is a nice suit. Bidding 2D just shows where I live. As an aside, I don't mind "reversing" with a little extra value but not real revesing power. Make this hand...

 

S-AKxx H-AQ8xx D-QTx C-x,

 

(that is switching the honors in the diamonds and spades), I would bid 2S, to show the concenration of honors. I happen think AKx is ok.

 

Ben

[junyi_zhu]

I Keep seeing statements such as "what are our agreements in this situation?"

 

I thought the point was to try and improve our bridge logic, not just make automatic bids.

 

Do not most or all of us play many or most of our BBO hands here in a somewhat new or casual partnership? Assume most of the hands we play here are not in an in -depth partnership agreement.

 

Assume less than 1% bridge partnerships hands on BBO have detailed agreements and often even then a situation comes up where no agreement or our understanding is forgotten or not the same as partners.

 

 

Assume the point is with 99.5% of our partners we play with at the table we do not have an agreement.

Well, probably you shouldn't try 2/1 with any pick-up partners. With random partners, it's best to play sayc or bws. 2/1 needs a lot of systemic discussions than sayc or bws.

It's no easy, and I am sure a lot of 2/1 players don't fully understand some basic idea of 2/1 GF. I have seen professional players played so called 2/1, bid 1S 2H 2S 4S

with a broken 12 and three baby spades, which is definetely against the basic slow arrival principle of 2/1 GF.

[the hog]

error

[the hog]

Fake suit? AKx is a nice suit. Bidding 2D just shows where I live. As an aside, I don't mind "reversing" with a little extra value but not real revesing power. Make this hand...

 

S-AKxx H-AQ8xx  D-QTx C-x,

 

(that is switching the honors in the diamonds and spades), I would bid 2S, to show the concenration of honors. I happen think AKx is ok.

 

Ben

OK should have said 3 card suit. Even headed by AK we would not bid this - partner could splinter, agreeing Ds, or hit Kickback agreeing Ds or worse still come up with exclusion Bw. However if you have the agreements in place that these are not possible, then 2D is fine. My primary point was that anyone who treats this - the posted hand - as a reverse has no idea of hand evaluation, and I certainly stand by that.

 

Certainly agree with Junyi that you can't play 2/1 in a scratch partnership eg the sequence he quoted:

1S 2H 2S 4S

we play as a "picture bid". Will a scratch partner play this? I doubt it.

 

Further, the way we play we use a Mafia structure, so over sequences such as

1H 2C 2H 2S and

1H 2C 2H 2N

we have quite different meanings and continuations , both in a game forcing auction. However again, I wonder how many people play a Mafia structure, so I tailor my answers to straight 2/1. The concept of a reverse not showing extra values is very poor theoretically, so poor that I am amazed a bridge writer could even recommend it.

[pclayton]

Ron said: The concept of a reverse not showing extra values is very poor theoretically, so poor that I amazed a bridge writer could even recommend it.

 

___________________________________________________________

 

This was dogma over here with 2/1 for the first 15 years it was played. 2/1 was 100% game force and a rebid of 2 of the major promised 6. 2N was the 'catchall' bid.

[Chamaco]

Fake suit? AKx is a nice suit. Bidding 2D just shows where I live. As an aside, I don't mind "reversing" with a little extra value but not real revesing power. Make this hand...

 

S-AKxx H-AQ8xx  D-QTx C-x,

 

(that is switching the honors in the diamonds and spades), I would bid 2S, to show the concenration of honors.

Yes, the way I play, the "reverse" (after pard's 2/1 GF) is based on losers (max 5.5 losers) rather than hcp.

Moreover, the quality of the second suit must be *good* (2 of top 3 honors or 3 of top 5).

 

The first suit of opener may be constrained by the system, but showing a second suit above 2 of the major is never an obligation, even if you hold 16/17 hcp or so (since rebidding 2M does not deny extras), so you need a god quality of the suit to mention it.

 

Therefore, you may decide to reverse with a 13 count, e.g.:

 

x-QJTxx-KQJxx-Ax = 5 losers, good second suit

1H:2C

3D

 

 

 

And NOT reversing with a 16/17 count

 

Kxxx-AJTxx-AK-Jx

 

1H:2C

2H

no reason to bid a lousy 4 card spade suit: even with Qx in clubs (17 hcp) I'd still rebid 2H.

PS- On 2nd thought this hand may as well qualify for a 3NT bid- if you play 3NT= 15-17 balanced and 2NT = 12-14 or 18+ balanced

Switching the minors, with this hand

Kxxx-AJTxx-Jx-AK

 

1H:2C

?

Would now suggest against bidding NT (unstopped diamonds) and therefore either 2H rebid or raising to 3C would be correct.

[Chamaco]

Further, the way we play we use a Mafia structure, ....

 

--- cut ---

 

However again, I wonder how many people play a Mafia structure, so I tailor my answers to straight 2/1.

 

--- cut ---

Ron,

can you recommend any good source for the serious student to read and see a decent number of examples of "MAFIA" sequences (besides Walsh sequences- already know that :-) ) ?

 

Mauro

 

"What do you think of these mafia murders?" "Mafia ? Mafia does not exist"

(Italian national broadcast news, Interview to some local sicilians - in the 1970s)