The nightmare gets worse!

[32519]

Was dealt this gem today:

[hv=pc=n&n=s62h93dqj65cakj95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp]133|200[/hv]

Basic system is 2/1

What the heck was I supposed to answer on this? Nothing fits in perfectly playing 2/1 where -

1. 1NT shows 6-10 HCP, no 4-card major (I had 11 HCP)

2. 2♣ shows 12+ HCP and is 100% GF (I had 11 HCP)

3. 2♦ shows 6-9 HCP and 5+ ♦ (sometimes only 4 if that is the best bid available)

4. 2NT shows 10-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit but otherwise balanced/semi-balanced, invitational

5. 3♦ shows 10-12 HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major, game invitational

 

The hand is heavily skewed towards the minors.

[sfi]

Given that it is such a nightmare, have you ever considered that bridge may simply not be the game for you?

[hrothgar]

Agreed. Probably best if you give it up. The game doesn't seem to suit you well.

 

Alternatively, either play system without these types of holes or stop your whining.

 

With the hand in question, given the system that you describe, I'm torn between 3♦ and 2♣.

 

2♣ is a slight overbid, but given your diamond fit it seems reasonable.

 

A 3♦ bid will work really well if partner has a dead minimum.

(Partner almost certainly has 4 diamonds in hand)

 

2NT is probably right on strength, but almost certainly wrong-sides the contract.

[ggwhiz]

2♣ will almost certainly end with partner declaring 3nt and if it doesn't work out I wouldn't even apologize.

[MrAce]

Given that it is such a nightmare, have you ever considered that bridge may simply not be the game for you?

 

 

 

Agreed. Probably best if you give it up. The game doesn't seem to suit you well.

 

Alternatively, either play system without these types of holes or stop your whining.

 

 

Amen to both !

[nige1]

Given that it is such a nightmare, have you ever considered that bridge may simply not be the game for you?

Agreed. Probably best if you give it up. The game doesn't seem to suit you well. Alternatively, either play system without these types of holes or stop your whining.

With the hand in question, given the system that you describe, I'm torn between 3♦ and 2♣.

2♣ is a slight overbid, but given your diamond fit it seems reasonable.

A 3♦ bid will work really well if partner has a dead minimum.

(Partner almost certainly has 4 diamonds in hand)

2NT is probably right on strength, but almost certainly wrong-sides the contract.

Amen to both !

You might apply an analogous argument to yourselves. If you find 32519's posts annoying: Why ridicule them? Why reply to them? Why even read them? At least Hrothgar also answered 32519's question. That's a positive development. :)

[Cyberyeti]

What is 3♣ ? otherwise you're stuck with 2N.

 

You might want to play a slightly different scheme of responses though.

[mike777]

Was dealt this gem today:

[hv=pc=n&n=s62h93dqj65cakj95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp]133|200[/hv]

Basic system is 2/1

What the heck was I supposed to answer on this? Nothing fits in perfectly playing 2/1 where -

1. 1NT shows 6-10 HCP, no 4-card major (I had 11 HCP)

2. 2♣ shows 12+ HCP and is 100% GF (I had 11 HCP)

3. 2♦ shows 6-9 HCP and 5+ ♦ (sometimes only 4 if that is the best bid available)

4. 2NT shows 10-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit but otherwise balanced/semi-balanced, invitational

5. 3♦ shows 10-12 HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major, game invitational

 

The hand is heavily skewed towards the minors.

 

given the conditions I will try 3d.

 

If pard expects me to bid 2nt well I will take the hit.

[MrAce]

You might apply an analogous argument to yourselves. If you find 32519's posts annoying: Why ridicule them? Why reply to them? Why even read them? At least Hrothgar also answered 32519's question. That's a positive development. :)

 

SFI did not say anything different than what you said. Basically...

 

You - Why don't you ignore his posts if it is so annoying to you ?

 

SFI -Why don't you ignore this game if you are having such nightmares ?

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[gszes]

AJ Kx QJxx xxxxx now there is an 11 semi balanced

that has a good reason to consider a 2n bid in your

system. The hand you presented had way more offensive

potential and should be considered game forcing. The

concentration of values in your 2 long suits should be

a "green light" to upgrade your hand.

 

HCP located in long suits are much better for offense

and HCP located in short suits are better for defense

(unless they happen to be located in partner's long suit(s).

If you want numbers my suggestion is to take any A/K or

supported Q/J <supported = with a card above it or the

card directly below it> and add:

.25 in a 4 card suit

.5 in a 5 card suit

.75 in a 6 card suit

1 in a 7 + card suit

The bonus applies for every honor.

 

Using the above system you would add to the original 11 HCP

+ 1 for the 5 card club suit

+ .25 for the supported (by the dia J) dia Q (in a 4 card suit)

+ .25 for the supported (by the dia Q) dia J (in a 4 card suit)

+ .5 for the club A (in a 5 card suit)

+ .5 for the club K (in a 5 card suit)

+ .5 for the supported club J (by both the A and K) in a 5 card suit

 

Your mere 11 HCP comes in with an offensive total much closer to 14

for an easy game forcing hand and a nice simple 2c bid. The above

system is easy to remember and use though I am sure there are a ton

of alternate adjustment systems out there.

 

When a hand comes up that does not seem to fit well with your

alternatives it is usually best to upgrade the hand (up to a point) at

imps and downgrade (up to a point) the hand slightly at MP. Try to lie

less about distribution and make the adjustments to power.

 

One more piece of advice--when someone starts off a response to a question

with some kind of put down--just move on since their advice is probably

worthless either because they haven't a clue or they are having a bad day and

their perspective is skewed. Every once in a while posters seem to forget they

are here to try and help those learning the game and we all had to start somewhere.

[32519]

What is 3♣ ? otherwise you're stuck with 2N.

We're playing off Paul Thurston's "The Pocket Guide to 2/1." According to this -

"Responses to a 1♦ opening," 3♣ is a game forcing artificial raise of ♦ with 12+ HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major and (usually) no side-suit shortness. (This convention is sometimes referred to as 'Criss-Cross Minors.')

 

So 3♣ wasn't available either.

 

Hrothgar, ggwhiz, mike777 and gszes at least offered a suggestion.

 

You might want to play a slightly different scheme of responses though.

How do you suggest we alter Paul Thurston's Pocket Guide to bid these sorts of hands?

[Vampyr]

How do you suggest we alter Paul Thurston's Pocket Guide to bid these sorts of hands?

 

My suggestion is don't play 1♦-2♣ as GF, and perhaps consider artificial continuations as well.

[Vampyr]

Please delete duplicate.

[mike777]

We're playing off Paul Thurston's "The Pocket Guide to 2/1." According to this -

"Responses to a 1♦ opening," 3♣ is a game forcing artificial raise of ♦ with 12+ HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major and (usually) no side-suit shortness. (This convention is sometimes referred to as 'Criss-Cross Minors.')

 

So 3♣ wasn't available either.

 

Hrothgar, ggwhiz, mike777 and gszes at least offered a suggestion.

 

 

How do you suggest we alter Paul Thurston's Pocket Guide to bid these sorts of hands?

 

fwiw I also play criss cross.

 

I also play 1 minor=2s as inv raise in bid minor. such as this hand. that means we can still stop in 2nt or 3 of bid minor.

[bigbenvic]

My response depends a lot on your opening style. How light do you open balanced hands? is a 4432 12 count to good to pass, how about 11 or a ratty 13? What about the 53e2 or 5422 type hands? If you open light to get more bids in, then I will bid 3♦ so as not to punish partner for opening a good 11 with 5 diamonds, if we are more strict on the opening bids then I'd happily stretch a little and bid 2♣.

 

If we haven't really discussed openings or it's a new partnership I'd follow what gszes said re imps or mps, though to be brutally honest I would probably just force as I have a working 11, pards has either a diamond suit or is 4333 or 44 in Majors (I assume) so I cover his likely gaps well and AKJ95 is a good chance to set up for 4+ tricks in NT and I'm unlikely to be playing the hand which is usually a plus :-)

[Zelandakh]

We're playing off Paul Thurston's "The Pocket Guide to 2/1." According to this -

Can you look up the 1NT and 2♣ responses to a 1♦ opening and confirm you have them correct. As a general rule, either the 2♣ response is GF and 1NT covers some invitational hands, or the 1NT response is as described and 2♣ is lighter. This "mish-mash" of responses is the reason for the skepticism from the panel.

[helene_t]

As a general rule, either the 2♣ response is GF and 1NT covers some invitational hands, or the 1NT response is as described and 2♣ is lighter.

I have never heard of a natural system in which the 1NT response covers invitational hands. Opener will pass the 1NT response with 12-14. You can chose to let a 2♣ response be invitational+, or you can chose not to invite opposite 12-14 at all, or you can have some other way of showing the 11 points without 4cM, most likely an immediate 2NT response.

 

The latter applies here so the correct call is 3♦. Probably 3♣ would be invitational as well but obviously not appropriate with this hand.

[gwnn]

You might apply an analogous argument to yourselves. If you find 32519's posts annoying: Why ridicule them? Why reply to them? Why even read them? At least Hrothgar also answered 32519's question. That's a positive development. :)

In this case, it's not really ridicule (in my case it often is, for other reasons). The fact is, sometimes you have a hand that can be described in more than alternative, none of them being perfect. The appropriate solution is not shell-shock, panic, or suicide, but choosing one of those alternatives and going on with your life, knowing that bidding is not perfect. I can't find the exact quote but I remember a physicist explaining how human language (or even the mathematical language of Physics) describing the universe is analogous to how you are washing dirty dishes with your dirty hands in dirty water but somehow still managing to get them relatively clean. The same holds for bridge bidding (only orders of magnitude more so) and if you can't cope with it, there is really very little anyone can do for you other than stating the obvious, like this post.

[rhm]

You might apply an analogous argument to yourselves. If you find 32519's posts annoying: Why ridicule them? Why reply to them? Why even read them? At least Hrothgar also answered 32519's question. That's a positive development. :)

In general 32519 posts are not annoying.

They are amusing, sometimes interesting, not least because of their originality. But always with a lot of theatrical drama.

The posts are funny and sometimes people react to the drama.

That can also be funny.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ahydra]

I would have thought that in 2/1, 1NT is the response here. I've never played it, but from what I've heard, 1NT covers all non-GF hands where you don't have a 1-level bid, and is forcing one round (or at least semi-forcing).

 

To be honest, just upgrade to 2C. With that nice suit and diamond fit you should be OK.

 

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

I have never heard of a natural system in which the 1NT response covers invitational hands.

What I wrote is basic 2/1 where 1♦ - 2♣ is GF, a forcing or semi-forcing 1NT response. Noone mentioned a 15-17 NT either, 14-16 probably works best within this framework. The alternative I wrote is standard for 2/1 GF only over a major (writing 2/1 1s not enough to differentiate the two).

[32519]

We're playing off Paul Thurston's "The Pocket Guide to 2/1."

Can you look up the 1NT and 2♣ responses to a 1♦ opening and confirm you have them correct. As a general rule, either the 2♣ response is GF and 1NT covers some invitational hands, or the 1NT response is as described and 2♣ is lighter. This "mish-mash" of responses is the reason for the skepticism from the panel.

This is what the Pocket Guide says:

 

Responses to a 1♦ opening

1NT = 6-10 HCP, no 4-card major, no 5-card ♦ suit (and usually not even 4 good ♦. Not forcing.

2♣ = Natural, 100% game forcing, 4+ ♣, 12+ HCP. May have 4-card major if longer clubs.

 

Seems like the gem in the OP isn't covered in any way by the Pocket Guide in my posession?

[32519]

My suggestion is don't play 1♦-2♣ as GF, and perhaps consider artificial continuations as well.

If we do this we are not playing 2/1 anymore. Now the system would become a hybrid of 2/1 and Standard American or whatever.

[Zelandakh]

Not only this hand then. There is also no response for an invitational hand with long clubs and no 4 card major. I would suggest finding a more mainstream version of 2/1 to play.

[wank]

3d diamonds. invitational with diamonds. problem solved.