The route seems to be signed

[Lovera]

How do you justify long and short suit point additions to go from 17 HCP to 23 total points when you don't even know that you have a trump fit?

No, it is considered by system (Stayman) to count it (on average) indipendently if fit there is or not (here having partner bidded spade doubleton is not calcouled).

[Cyberyeti]

You've seen a good reason not to respond 3♥.

 

One of the reasons 2♥ works well in most systems is that you know whether 3♣ shows extras, but in your system you have no idea whether 4♣ does.

[Lovera]

You've seen a good reason not to respond 3♥.

 

One of the reasons 2♥ works well in most systems is that you know whether 3♣ shows extras, but in your system you have no idea whether 4♣ does.

The initial partner bidding was right with longer spade and it'be known subquently. With my hand i had to jump than but, as how after had been revelead, the hand was min and 5-5.

[Trinidad]

The initial partner bidding was right with longer spade and it'be known subquently. With my hand i had to jump than but, as how after had been revelead, the hand was min and 5-5.

Why did you have to jump?

 

Nobody here would jump. Do you have a special reason why you have to jump (e.g. 2♥ would not be forcing)? If so, could you tell us that reason?

 

If you don't have a special reason to jump then you shouldn't.

 

Jumping around to show how strong you are belongs to the animal kingdom, not to the bridge table.

 

Rik

[Lovera]

As told, in accordling to system, having 19/+ (comprending distributional points) i must jump. Ex.: ♠ 62 ♥ AJ4 ♦ AKJ75 ♣ K93 Bid 2♦- This hand has a max (18 points).. for an answer at second level. With a point more you are obbliged to jump bidding 3♦. (Stayman system example 27 pag. 47).

[Trinidad]

As told, in accordling to system, having 19/+ (comprending distributional points) i must jump.

Yes, but why does the system say that you must jump?

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

As told, in accordling to system, having 19/+ (comprending distributional points) i must jump. Ex.: ♠ 62 ♥ AJ4 ♦ AKJ75 ♣ K93 Bid 2♦- This hand has a max (18 points).. for an answer at second level. With a point more you are obbliged to jump bidding 3♦. (Stayman system example 27 pag. 47).

 

Learn a better system. Jumps should show something specific as they waste space, here a jump is utterly not needed and counter productive. 3♥ if strong should be one suited (or with a second suit that matches opener's).

[Lovera]

Is it not simple or easy to leave a system adopted. Many are the motivations for it. If a system is already collaudate or "worked" in any manner the diffucult its bidding architetture and/or also orientation are the aim. In my case i know it very well and find that is very duttile. This allow to insert, it being natural many integrative conventions (this one infact is not, obviously, the original Stayman). Than: why do you jump ? Because we are out of range of force for level bidding. In this way it is comunicated immediately that the hand can have possibility to explore for slam (if partner can help with more) it being warrant game and ultherior conditions, with this force, came alone but have to be found with a combination if you have or not an own good suit or you have or not a support for partner or plus a great complessive force. Probably this mine it different from 2/1 that i do not play.

[rmnka447]

Playing 2/1, I'm bidding 2 ♥. Even playing strong jump shifts(SJS), I'm bidding 2 ♥. Because SJSs take up so much bidding space, they ought to convey the message -- "I've got a big hand with this suit. Our final contract ought to be in your suit, my suit, or NT." Here, ♦ could also be a final strain for the contract, so a SJS is inappropriate.

[Lovera]

Playing 2/1, I'm bidding 2 ♥. Even playing strong jump shifts(SJS), I'm bidding 2 ♥. Because SJSs take up so much bidding space, they ought to convey the message -- "I've got a big hand with this suit. Our final contract ought to be in your suit, my suit, or NT." Here, ♦ could also be a final strain for the contract, so a SJS is inappropriate.

It is nor the case to discuss difference that surely are among systems here because not is much necessary (and it will be off-topic). Why not ? Because everyone of us know when is the case eventually to change. Every system work in a certain better manner and no one is not good. Then needs consider how a system "marry" his/her fruitor. A system also inferior to another one can have a better resulting too if who bid is an expert (if not a champion). Is a question of limits, as for bidding (or planning the play of the hand).

[johnu]

No, it is considered by system (Stayman) to count it (on average) indipendently if fit there is or not (here having partner bidded spade doubleton is not calcouled).

 

Do you have any bridge books that aren't 60+ years old? Bidding theory has advanced a lot since the 50's, and most of the people who played 1950's systems are dead now.

[Lovera]

Do you have any bridge books that aren't 60+ years old? Bidding theory has advanced a lot since the 50's, and most of the people who played 1950's systems are dead now.

I agree with you. But, and is not only for this, the answer is why i "worked" the system and in positive resultings (yet if it can refer also at other aspects of playing).

[Kaitlyn S]

Do you have any bridge books that aren't 60+ years old? Bidding theory has advanced a lot since the 50's, and most of the people who played 1950's systems are dead now.

I have a bridge book from the 1920's. One of the tips is that you shouldn't bid a suit unless you have the ace or king in it.

[Vampyr]

Is it not simple or easy to leave a system adopted. Many are the motivations for it. If a system is already collaudate or "worked" in any manner the diffucult its bidding architetture and/or also orientation are the aim. In my case i know it very well and find that is very duttile. This allow to insert, it being natural many integrative conventions (this one infact is not, obviously, the original Stayman). Than: why do you jump ? Because we are out of range of force for level bidding. In this way it is comunicated immediately that the hand can have possibility to explore for slam (if partner can help with more) it being warrant game and ultherior conditions, with this force, came alone but have to be found with a combination if you have or not an own good suit or you have or not a support for partner or plus a great complessive force. Probably this mine it different from 2/1 that i do not play.

 

You could make a small change, which is not to attach an upper limit to a 2/1, and change your style of jump shifts to that mentioned in several posts above. This would make a big difference.

[Winstonm]

I have a bridge book from the 1920's. One of the tips is that you shouldn't bid a suit unless you have the ace or king in it.

 

I don't think we should discount an idea simply because it is old - I have played the Culbertson 4NT/5NT convention with no problems.

[johnu]

I don't think we should discount an idea simply because it is old - I have played the Culbertson 4NT/5NT convention with no problems.

 

You should discount an idea because it is obsolete and there is something better. Not bidding a suit because it doesn't have an ace or king is an idea that has not stood the test of time, if it ever was a good idea. If you don't bid that suit, you will probably have to severely distort showing your distribution. Another "old" idea was don't open 1NT with a small doubleton. Great if you don't have a small doubleton, but you will probably have rebid problems if you don't open 1NT. Making a strong jump shift just because you have a bunch of points and a long suit is another old idea. The folly of that idea can be seen in results of the OP.

[Lovera]

I don't think we should discount an idea simply because it is old - I have played the Culbertson 4NT/5NT convention with no problems.

It is true what you say. The system is good (Stayman is the author of 1NT opening - at that time with 16-18 points - actually refined and bidded in many modern ways). I too had applyed for slam approach for unbalanced hands the Asking Bid by E. Culbertson surely a powerfull convention. Already in system Stayman claimed that in Blackwood was to consider the King of trump as " fifth controll of first round" (the other direct method was Gerber but i used 4 ♣ of the italian Walter Avarelli instead - a good convention perhaps few known). The "old" good ideas don't have to forget because, if not more applyed, can be expression and source to intend as base for new conventions.

[sfi]

The system is good

 

It really isn't, and that is the essence of your problem. I don't say this lightly because I think most systems are reasonable, but forcing a 3H bid on this hand is simply bad. Bidding has moved on since Stayman wrote about it in the 1940's, and no good pair would give up all that bidding space on hands with slam interest.

 

For that matter, almost no bad pair would give up the bidding space either. You really are by yourself when you choose 3H, and predictably you got into trouble for exactly the reasons you might expect.

[nullve]

i used 4 ♣ of the italian Walter Avarelli instead - a good convention perhaps few known

http://www.infobridge.it/Convenzioni_Avarelli.htm

 

"This convention is extremely useful when the asking partner holds a void. In its original form it was used in well-defined and precise bidding situations as established by the bidding system."

[Vampyr]

Ah, right, is this called Roman Gerber?

[Lovera]

It really isn't, and that is the essence of your problem. I don't say this lightly because I think most systems are reasonable, but forcing a 3H bid on this hand is simply bad. Bidding has moved on since Stayman wrote about it in the 1940's, and no good pair would give up all that bidding space on hands with slam interest.

 

For that matter, almost no bad pair would give up the bidding space either. You really are by yourself when you choose 3H, and predictably you got into trouble for exactly the reasons you might expect.

I have told that partner had to bid 1♣ but i had anyhow to jump in 2♥ because it needs to show 19/+ points and shape/suits as indicated. This bidding sure 11 (or worst 10) tricks with partner hand.

[Vampyr]

I have told that partner had to bid 1♣ but i had anyhow to jump in 2♥ because it needs to show 19/+ points and shape/suits as indicated. This bidding sure 11 (or worst 10) tricks with partner hand.

 

It is very old fashioned to open 1♣ with 5-5 in the blacks. These days the opponents are right in there, and it is easy to lose the spade suit. Partner's 1♠ was correct.

 

What you fail to understand is that you don't need to show 19+ points (or however many you had). Show 10+ and take it from there.

 

If partner had opened a minor, you could still have responded 1♥. Bid even if you felt you had to bid 2♥ you would not be at the three level. But you will find that minor-to-major jump shifts are much more commonly played as weak, since the bidding space is better used to obstruct the opponents' bidding, as well as providing a very clear picture of your hand to partner, who will be well placed to know what to do i the later auction.but SJS are OK if you play them as showing fairly specific hands, as above.

 

A general rule is that if you have a forcing bid available, you don't need a "more forcing" bid to show the same hand-type.

[Lovera]

http://www.infobridge.it/Convenzioni_Avarelli.htm

 

"This convention is extremely useful when the asking partner holds a void. In its original form it was used in well-defined and precise bidding situations as established by the bidding system."

Although for King request i had (and used) other (more economic) answers (perhaps it is not correctly reported).

[johnu]

So, with a little thinking if raise spade or not preferring my suit, i bidded 5♥ and all passed. On opening lead of ♠ 8 i saw dummy with 5 spade to AK10, 5 club to KQ and xxx in diamond. Partner had 5 spade and 5 club and this case is an exception to rule having to bid 1♣ and with my 2♥ follow with spade (probably ending in 3 NT) as another pair did. In despite of all 5♥ there were (you can see that till 7th trick all is ok..but after yet (but i played it incorrectly). The four hands: http://tinyurl.com/h5f8zrd

 

Why didn't West ruff the 3rd club with a small trump?

[Lovera]

Why didn't West ruff the 3rd club with a small trump?

Infact, -0.67 instead -2.20. Split all suits bad.