Still a slow night

[Lord Molyb]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj965hdt6ckq852&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sp2cp3cp3np]133|200[/hv]

imps

[sfi]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj965hdt6ckq852&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sp2cp3cp3np]133|200[/hv]

imps

 

Any insight into what system we are playing, and any other relevant agreements?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj965hdt6ckq852&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sp2cp3cp3np]133|200|

Lord Molyb writes "imps"

 

 

IMO

Over 2♣, 4♥ = 10, 3♠ = 9.

Now, 6♣ = 10, 5♥ (hope this is exclusion) = 8, 4♥ = 7, 5♦ = 6, 7♣ = 5, 4♠ = 4.[/hv]

[Lord Molyb]

Just SAYC 2/1

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj965hdt6ckq852&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sp2cp3cp3np]133|200|

Lord Molyb writes "imps"

 

 

IMO 6♣ = 10, 5♥ (hope this is exclusion) = 8, 4♥ = 7, 5♦ = 6, 7♣ = 5, 4♠ = 4.[/hv]

you recommend 5♥ as exclusion but not 5♦? :blink:

[SteveMoe]

I think I would prefer 3♥ splinter for ♣ in place of the 3♣ rebid shown. That said, I now need to rebid 4♠ showing extras and ♠s longer than ♣s. 5N/6♣ immediately feels too committal. Partner could be on ♠xx ♥AKxx ♦KQx ♣J10xx or ♠xx ♥AKx ♦KQx ♣J10xxx (depending on how you play 2♣).

[nige1]

you recommend 5♥ as exclusion but not 5♦? :blink:

Wouldn't Zia prefer 5♦ :)

[PhilKing]

Wouldn't Zia prefer 5♦ :)

 

No. He's been living off that reputation for 20 years, and it will be another 20 years before anyone alters their perception.

[JLOGIC]

I would just splinter. I'm going to play this straight up with 4C since we could easily have a slam and could possibly be off 2 diamonds in a situation where they'd be likely to find the right lead.

[Zelandakh]

Just SAYC 2/1

Is this a real system? As a non-American this sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[mr1303]

Is 2C game forcing?

 

I would also bid 3H last time. Now I bid 4C

[Cyberyeti]

4♥ for me, exclusion.

[Fluffy]

With few agreements I have no splinter in hearts below the 5 level, so 3♣ is ok, I would reopen with 4♣ to hear the diamond control.

[Cyberyeti]

With few agreements I have no splinter in hearts below the 5 level, so 3♣ is ok, I would reopen with 4♣ to hear the diamond control.

You'd better hope you're playing 2/1 (which is not stated) if not, you might play 3♣+3 opposite xx, Qxxx, Axx, Axxx unless ops save you.

[Lord Molyb]

Is this a real system? As a non-American this sounds like an oxymoron to me.

SAYC except the following are game forcing:

1♠-->2♣

1♠-->2♦

1♠-->2♥

1♥-->2♣

1♥-->2♦

1♦-->2♣

 

Partner had:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=s87hkjtdkq8ca9743]133|100[/hv]

sort of surprised the opponents didn't interfere.

 

[gszes]

after 1s 2c our hand is a potential monster but that does not mean we can go overboard because

p can have many hands with all kinds of values in the red suits that make slamming a poor idea.

 

we need to show this distributional monster in a way that takes up little rooom if possible. IMO

 

 

2S

 

is the best way to get started even if for the time being it only promises 5. when we support clubs

next it should become apparent that our 2s bid showed 6. the 2s bid has the benefit of keeping

the bidding low and allowing for a full range of exploration. A 3h splinter works only if p has no

no wasted values in hearts. If p has to bid 3n we will never have the confidence to play there

becasue we still would have no clue about dia stops. It just takes up too much space.

 

The same problem with all of the more optimistic slam tries which fail to take into account a ton of

2c bids that are filled with non slam oriented cards. similar to Q KQJ KQx Jxxxxx

 

Also note that by bidding 2s we leave room for p to rebid 2n which will answer our question

about wasted values in hearts. We can then bid 3c to show the distributional nature of our hand.

if p were to then bid 3n we would defer rather than pushing on for no reason (though i admit

a 4c bid over 3n would be hard to resist). The single biggest advantage of 2/1 is the ability to

keep the bidding LOW take advantage of its strongest feature and explore dont just guess.

[Fluffy]

You'd better hope you're playing 2/1 (which is not stated) if not, you might play 3♣+3 opposite xx, Qxxx, Axx, Axxx unless ops save you.

raising partner's 2/1 is forcing in france and USA, I don't know ACOL, but if its not forcing there it might be the only one.

[Cyberyeti]

raising partner's 2/1 is forcing in france and USA, I don't know ACOL, but if its not forcing there it might be the only one.

Certainly non forcing in traditional Acol where the 2/1 can be an 8 count, we also play it NF where the 2/1 needs to be a 10 count, why force to the 4 level/3N with what might be 10/11 opposite 10.

[Fluffy]

because your fit might compensate lack of values and because slams are unbidable otherwise

[Cyberyeti]

because your fit might compensate lack of values and because slams are unbidable otherwise

Playing a weak NT 2N rebid is GF 15+, we unusually play it as not necessarily balanced so there is no problem with good hands so 3♣ is NF.

[Fluffy]

you compensate a faulty style with conventions :), conventions are fine, but for non regular partnerships a playable natural style is better. People who play french std or sayc don't open 11 counts regularly. When I leart french std, many 12 balanced were passed.

[Zelandakh]

SAYC except the following are game forcing:

Perhaps it would be better just to say 2/1. This system has nothing whatsoever to so with SAYC that I can see. If it did then you would have no response with many invitational hands, since 1NT is weak and non-forcing in SAYC.